LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9379
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 24 April 2015
The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
9380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9381
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
9382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9383
PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:
DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
9384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
BILLS
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good Morning, Honourable Members. Committee now proceeds to the second debate. Does any Member wish to speak?
APPROPRIATION BILL 2015
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, it appears that a quorum is lacking this morning. I hope you will summon Members to the meeting under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. Does any Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Good Morning, Chairman. Basically, most of my arguments for reducing the expenditure for the Security Bureau were already spelt out yesterday, but I have to add one more point because I mentioned yesterday the rationale and logic for mentioning that the policemen had turned into urban management officers, which were even worse than public security officers. I would like to elaborate further my underlying idea and the gravity of the issue, so that Hong Kong people would come to know that these changes will actually bring disasters to the Police Force and Hong Kong alike.
In particular, I hope members of the Police Force who still have conscience and believe in their professionalism, especially the Secretary for Security, can reflect deeply on the series of changes recently and the related circumstances. It LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9385 is because I was asked by some pro-government Members yesterday why I criticized LAI Tung-kwok so severely. They said that the Secretary, who was only performing his duties, was actually not as bad as Andy TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying. If Members understand the operation of government departments, they should know that all civil servants, from high-ranking to low-ranking ones, including front-line operational staff, are interrelated. It is most imperative for high-ranking individuals to effect monitoring and supervision in addressing problems or allowing some of their subordinates to discharge their duties. Some pro-government Members argue that even the Secretary for Security cannot do anything to bring about changes. If Andy TSANG insists on certain acts, coupled with the support from Beijing and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (LOCPG) in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region, the Secretary for Security will be unable to influence the decisions of his subordinates despite his dissatisfaction ― some Secretaries of Departments and Bureau Directors might feel dissatisfied, too. I consider such a remark utterly ridiculous. If the Secretary for Security thinks that the enforcement of policies or instructions by the Commissioner of Police, some of the acts committed according to the so-called professionalism or professional decisions, or the circumstances thus resulted, are in breach of certain policies and principles, police guidelines or even the law, can he as an accountable Bureau Director ― even if he is a man in the street, a Hongkonger or a member of the public with conscience ― put up with the Commissioner?
The pro-government Members say that he is only doing his job because he can do nothing to influence the LOCPG should it insist on having its own way. Such an argument is totally unacceptable to me. This is like some German military officers being convicted of criminal offences for executing certain instructions given by Nazi Germany, including participating in the massacre of prisoners of war in concentration camps, during the Second World War. Such being the case, if the policies or instructions executed are in violation of the law, conscience, and the basic values of survival, one cannot evade his or her responsibility with such an excuse because the acts of the Police in maintaining law and order, so to speak, during the Umbrella Movement over the past several months were in violation of human nature.
Yesterday, I had pointed out time and again that, for instance, it is against the police internal guidelines for a police officer to hit someone's head with a baton. It is also against the law for the Police to conspire with triads in suppressing the occupiers. Back in the 1950s or 1960s, the Anti-Triad Squads 9386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 were criticized by many critics and the media for being the "most corrupt" because they were literally the hotbeds of triads. It was only after a gradual cleaning up process that the Police began to build up their professional image. Why did I compare the Hong Kong Police Force to urban management officers yesterday and say that they did not even match up to public security officers? The series of acts I mentioned just now are to be blamed. It is also not wrong to say that public security officers in the Mainland behaved in that manner in the 1980s or 1990s. In the last three to five years, however, we have no longer seen them behave in such a dirty and despicable manner as the Hong Kong police officers did during the Occupy period. Have you ever seen Mainland public security officers hit the head of an unarmed teenage schoolgirl with an iron bar? Have you ever seen them blatantly conspire with triads in suppressing young students? Have you seen them connive at people resembling these blue-ribbon members assaulting journalists brazenly before their very eyes? Have you seen a protester being escorted to a dark corner and assaulted by seven public security officers? Have you seen Mainland public security officers arrest the so-called fighters, fabricate information and evidence, talk nonsense, or backtrack on what they said again and again? The urban management officers on the Mainland are probably not as exaggerated or stupid as the Hong Kong police officers.
Hence, we can see from the series of acts that our Secretary has let the Police Force fall from grace, which is unacceptable. I have been told by some pro-government Members that there is nothing the Secretary can do to bring about change. In that case, he should have resigned. This is the basic principle of one conducting himself. If he is willing to associate himself with undesirable elements and give tacit consent to his subordinates to do so and tolerate their behaviour, then he simply has lost his human nature as well as a human's basic dignity. Should he be condemned by his own conscience in order to earn $300,000 to $400,000 monthly? He will definitely be condemned or even face legal sanctions in future should he lose his basic conscience.
Hence, I call on enthusiastic people or groups to compile a criminal file for the senior echelons of the Government because there might eventually be a chance to bring them to trial one after another according to this file. For instance, JIANG Zemin has been tried by the Spanish Government and eventually found guilty by the Court, meaning he will be arrested should he set foot on Europe. I have no idea what mechanism will be put in place in the future for these criminals and people brutally assaulting innocent citizens or using their public power to infringe on the personal safety and freedom of individuals ― it is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9387 not impossible for such a mechanism to be set up in Hong Kong. For instance, a democratic government can be established when the Umbrella Revolution gains success in Hong Kong. By then, these people will definitely be arrested and tried.
Hence, the records and information of these criminals will definitely prove to be useful when the opportunity arises, be it in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or other parts of the world. I know that some lawyers' teams in Hong Kong are now assisting some people in instituting civil proceedings to sue the Commissioner of Police and relevant persons for their unlawful acts. But more importantly, in my opinion, a list should be prepared for all suspected criminals starting from those at the top, including LEUNG Chun-ying, the Secretary for Security and Andy TSANG, nicknamed the "Condor", who is destroying the reputation of the policemen and the history of the police profession in Hong Kong ― he is the most wanted criminal because of the most heinous crimes he has committed ― as well as those expatriate police officers who had ordered the deployment of tear gas, the senior constables who had brutally assaulted unarmed people, as well as those front-line officers who had assaulted unarmed people and fabricated statements. Their names, backgrounds, ranks and acts should be set out on the list for uploading onto the Internet for study by professional teams to see if anything can be done in accordance with international law.
I have learnt that the Europe Union has conducted studies on the series of brutal acts committed by the Police Force, and a hearing might even be convened. If the relevant legal proceedings cannot be conducted in Hong Kong, trials can be conducted in other places, like the one conducted in Spain on JIANG Zemen. In fact, many people who were born or brought up in Hong Kong and are closely associated with Hong Kong are now living in various parts of the world. These people might be able to institute formal proceedings in the Courts of other parts of the world for the victims in Hong Kong or as the latter's relatives, so that these criminals will still face arrest or imprisonment in other parts of the world. Such being the case, they might cease acting in such an arrogant manner, thinking that nothing is their concern and they can get off scot-free, right?
It seems that they can behave recklessly and outrageously because of the backing of the Hong Kong communists as well as the presence of the Communist Party of China and the LOCPG behind the scene. However, some members of the LOCPG have to go into exile. For instance, XU Jiatun, the former Director 9388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 of Xinhua News Agency, was still in the United States. I hope members of the Police Force who still have conscience can reflect on themselves and examine the series of acts I mentioned just now. Do they, as police officers, government officials or officials of the Security Bureau, accept such a terrible change under the governance of the Hong Kong communists? Meanwhile, they should also evaluate the impact thus produced. They are now behaving in such an awesome manner, saying that they have assaulted this and that person. On the Internet, some police officers ― particularly low-ranking police officers ― have even interpreted their bad behaviour as a heroic act. Let us think about this. What sort of heroes are they? They are simply following the culture and tradition of triads, right? Some people worship triads, believing that their leaders are invincible fighters with a high sense of loyalty and great courage. But actually, these police officers do not even compare well with villains. Armed to the teeth with helmets, they have been seen chasing an unarmed teenage schoolgirl with her head bleeding. Is a hero supposed to do such things? They do not even compare well with villains.
What do they rely on now? They are merely relying on public powers, the support of the despotic power of Andy TSANG, the lackey, the backing of the Hong Kong communist regime behind the scene, and the Chief Executive, the liar. Compared with the brutality of German Nazis, the present performance of the Hong Kong Police Force is even worse. Just now, I likened them to urban management officers, but on second thought, some of their acts did not even compare well with those of urban management officers. Such a low standard is outrageous and regrettable.
For many years, I have not seen any in-depth studies conducted by academics in Hong Kong to reflect the reality and phenomena of society. Actually, academics should conduct in-depth studies on the current situation of the Police Force and make comparisons, such as comparative studies, which were very common back in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of these studies should be focused on comparisons of the Police Force in the 1960s and now. The Police Force now do not even compare well with that in the 1960s. Such academic studies should be conducted to raise the awareness of people and to make them understand and gain a clear picture of the dire situation of Hong Kong.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak now in this session to support the amendments to reduce the remuneration of the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration. Why am I saying this? Chairman, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9389 these two government officials have failed to attend to their proper business. Allow me to present it in a more poetic style: they heed not the call of our times, and they heed not the urge of history to accomplish their due tasks. Therefore, they deserve a reduction in remuneration and non-payment of their salaries.
Chairman, in what way have the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration failed to attend to their proper business? It is about their duties to hold fast to the original intention endorsed by Hong Kong people in the 1980s when they faced the reunification. They should exert their level best on behalf of Hong Kong people to persuade the Central Government to respond to the original intention held by Hong Kong people back then. They should point out unequivocally to the Central Government that the Central Authorities promised to implement the Basic Law, "one country, two systems", and the arrangements of "a high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". It has promised to implement the 14 Appendixes to the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Those Appendixes set out clearly the outlines and details of various values and systems adopted in Hong Kong. The Central Authorities cannot go back on their words.
If President XI Jinping is forgetful, they should explain to the Central Government why the arrangements were made back then. At that time, when Hong Kong people saw Ms Margaret THATCHER meet with Mr DENG Xiaoping in the Great Hall of the People, we knew that Hong Kong would be reunified with the Motherland, a country adopting communism and democratic dictatorship by the people. We understood that Hong Kong had been severed from our Motherland for 150 to 160 years, and we had already developed the values and systems we treasured. We expected them to be carried forward, meaning those values and systems would continue to be adopted in Hong Kong. For this arrangement would benefit not only Hong Kong but also the country. Chairman, come to think about this. If the name "Hong Kong" is deleted from the contemporary history of China of the past century, I think the whole set of contemporary history has to be rewritten. This cannot be clearer.
Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and I are of similar age. By logic, the experience they have gone through in the history of Hong Kong should be the same as mine. Why do they not speak up for Hong Kong people? Between the high wall and the egg, why have they chosen to deceive and press the egg continually, and why have they chosen to stand on the side of the high wall and keep making remarks which they know at 9390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 heart are untrue? Are they attending to their proper business? Worse still, Chairman, they cannot get their job done, which means they cannot even meet the minimum requirement.
Chairman, come to think about the slogan we heard on Wednesday, that is, "2017: Make it happen" (2017，一定要得). It is nonsense indeed. However, the Chairman may remember that the slogan is very similar to the one used in 2000 for the bid for the right to host the 2006 Asian Games. At that time, the slogan "Hong Kong for Sure" (香港一定得) was used. They did not even bother to think up a new slogan, so is it not then justified to stop paying them salaries? The slogan used in the past connotes an unhappy experience, for we had failed in the bid for the right to host the Asian Games. Perhaps we may think about it this way. They have chosen this slogan intentionally to cope with the reality. The authorities and Beijing do not want the proposal passed anyway, so they deliberately chose this slogan which signifies the failure in the bid for the right to host the Asian Games to match with the present promotion campaign. Who knows.
However, Chairman, after listening to the statement made by the Chief Secretary on Wednesday, I wonder if you share the following feeling: One can be more certain that if we accept the "pocket-it-first" proposal, it will be the finish of the constitutional reform, and it will be impossible to take it further. For this reason, we can only refuse to "pocket it first". We have to preserve our dignity by refusing to call a stag a horse. For only by doing so can we continue to call a stag a stag and a horse a horse, or calling the black colour black and the white colour white. After that, we have to remind ourselves that the original goal we have been upholding since the 1980s is to implement the 14 Appendixes to the Sino-British Declaration through "one country, two systems", "high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". For we have to ensure that the established values and systems in Hong Kong can be maintained, thereby making continuous contribution to the modernization of constitutional and economic development of our Motherland.
They have neglected their duties, they have acted perfunctorily and they have failed to respond to the call of our times in history, but we can take it upon ourselves. After listening to the statement made by the Chief Secretary, Members have discovered that the spectrum under the framework of the 31 August Decision is broad on one side and narrow on the other, but the Chief Secretary has chosen the narrowest part of the spectrum. Let me cite two examples to illustrate my point. Chairman, in the 14th paragraph of her LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9391 statement, it is pointed out that the composition of the 38 subsectors will remain unchanged, for it must comply with the 31 August Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). In other words, the composition must be compatible with the four major sectors of the existing Election Committee, whereas the four major sectors will remain unchanged. However, she also said that at the stage of making local legislation, the composition of the subsectors will remain unchanged. Some time ago, there was heated discussion on changing corporate votes to directors' votes, and there was even hope of replacing them with shareholders' votes. Do not think about it now. She has killed this possibility in one stroke. Furthermore, when it comes to "one-person-one-vote" election, she chose the approach where the elect is not required to win more than half of the total number of votes. In 2012, when LEUNG Chun-ying was elected the Chief Executive, he was required to win over half of the votes, that is, at least 601 votes. Why is this requirement lifted now?
People have mentioned the proposal of "blank-vote veto" or the "none-of-the-above" option. Anson CHAN has mentioned that people who had been screened out by the nominating committee may be chosen by the people under the political red line. However, these options are all wishful thinking now. Why? Chairman, according to the present design, a candidate needs only win 500 000 votes to be elected. If the constitutional reform this time around is passed, it must be another great contribution made by LEUNG Chun-ying. In other words, he will be credited for quelling the riot, as it has been learnt that the Central Authorities have commended him for quelling the 79-day Occupation Movement. With the passage of the constitutional reform proposal, he will have made another great contribution. That means he must be able to be the first anointed Chief Executive returned by universal suffrage.
With this explanation, Members may ask why the elect is not required to win more than half of the votes? The arrangement is probably made to pre-empt the scenario where LEUNG Chun-ying could only win 500 000 votes in the election, with 2 million votes being blank votes. For under the arrangement, he can still be declared elected and he can continue to be the Chief Executive freely. He can continue to work on the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 and promote the brainwashing national studies, so as to speed up the mainlandization of Hong Kong. This is his mission. The present arrangement will make him even more arrogant, for he now has 500 000 votes. What can the 2 million blank votes achieve? Nothing. This is the essence of the present design.
9392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Therefore, the statement made by the authorities on Wednesday has reinforced the determination of the pan-democratic camp to negative the proposal on behalf of Hong Kong people. In my view, at least more than half of the people of Hong Kong will veto the constitutional reform proposal now and refuse to "pocket it first". However, Chairman, I would like to remind the Chief Secretary here that the Basic Law requires the proposal to be passed by two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council. If the Legislative Council is a miniature of society, then even if only one third of the people of Hong Kong wants to preserve their dignity, and not to forget the original goal and continue to exercise the power of the powerless, we are duty-bound and have the moral responsibility to speak on their behalf and sit persistently here to veto the proposal. Should not these people forming one third of the people of Hong Kong be represented here? Should not someone press the red button here to vote against the proposal on their behalf? What kind of logic is it? Therefore, when the Chief Secretary and LEUNG Chun-ying point out that more than half of the people of Hong Kong are supportive of the "pocket-it-first" approach, I hope they will understand this and I urge them to read the Basic Law again. The authorities should stop saying that the pan-democratic camp dismisses a proposal supported by half of Hong Kong people, for this is neither the constitutional order nor the threshold required under Appendixes 1 and 2 to the Basic Law. Is this not dereliction of duty on their part? They have not checked the Basic Law clearly before coming out to give those arbitrary instructions. They are misleading Hong Kong people. Should they not be subject to a pay cut then?
This is another reason for my supporting deducting their remuneration or stopping paying them salaries. Chairman, I pointed out that they have not attended to their proper business for I hope to let Hong Kong people see clearly what the SAR Government is doing now. In addition to the political advertisements broadcast on radio and television during prime time currently, the Government has partnered with political parties from the pro-establishment camp to kick off the election engineering for 2015 and 2016. I have not wronged LEUNG Chun-ying about this, for he admitted it himself. He has more than once urged the public to register as electors and called on them to "vote them out". This I quote. This remark of his has laid bare his underlying intent. He has not persuaded the Central Government on behalf of Hong Kong people, stating that the latter hope the Central Government will not forget the original intention and will provide Hong Kong with what they have been expecting since the 1980s, that is, to act in accordance with Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law and the promise made by the NPCSC in 2007. This is the proper duty he should fulfil. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9393
As evident in the present situation, the authorities have been sloppy in choosing the slogan and have failed to exhaust the room in amending local legislation. It is obvious that the authorities are pressing Members from the pan-democratic camp to press the red button to vote against the constitutional reform. After the act of "swapping the prince for a raccoon", the authorities now force us to swallow the blame, simply trying to choke us to death. Now, they carry out election engineering work for 2015 and 2016 with the pro-establishment camp every day by besmirching the democratic camp, hoping the electors will "vote us out". Is this not evidence of them not attending to their proper business? Why do they deserve to get paid? Chairman, with these remarks, I support all the amendments seeking to reduce or cut all the remuneration of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Chief Executive. I so submit.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): The points in my speech are consistent with the standpoints of my fellow party member and our Party Leader, Mr Alan LEONG, who spoke earlier on, that is, in this debate session, many of the amendments are related to the deduction of one year of remunerations and allowances for the Chief Executive as well as the principal Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux. In doing so, it is hoped that some scope can be gained, so that the misdeeds greatly at odds with the wishes and interests of the Hong Kong public committed by the current-term Government, as perceived by the pan-democratic camp, can be revealed to the public.
Chairman, the actions of LEUNG Chun-ying and his so-called governing team can really leave one speechless. Just now, Mr Alan LEONG said that on a certain occasion, LEUNG Chun-ying had made an appeal to the audience not to vote for people who obstructed his administration, and he even said specifically that I was one of the people whom he pinpointed. In addition, in some private functions ― but the money spent was also public funds ― he held two tea forums at the Government House on a weekend. The term "tea forum" is probably a term commonly used on the Mainland but after the reunification, it can be heard frequently in recent years. In these tea forums, I was one of the people named and it was said that it was necessary to guard against my words and actions.
I wonder why, as the head of Government of this world city and the Chief Executive, his actions often give people the impression that he is so narrow-minded, petty and unworthy of his position.
9394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Why am I saying this? First, on one public occasion, he called on the public not to vote for people who obstructed his administration, telling them to drive them out or kick them out. Members may not have paid much attention to that occasion because in the news footage, he was apparently speaking continually in a formal way but in fact, it was most inappropriate to talk about that sort of things on that occasion. On that occasion, he was invited to speak to a group of foreigners, mainly fund managers … this group of people had come to Hong Kong for only a very short period of time, and what did the majority of them come here for? They were here to watch the Rugby Sevens. In front of a group of foreigners, in front of a group of people many of whom were not Hong Kong residents but who were also very concerned about Hong Kong, perhaps because they had made investments in Hong Kong and therefore watched Hong Kong's economic prospects closely, he talked about certain internal matters or internal affairs to this group of people or outsiders.
Imagine this: If I were a fund manager from Europe sitting here and had come here to watch the Rugby Sevens, and such an occasion were to arise for me to establish connections and do some networking, yet when I was in front of this Chief Executive, lo and behold, he made those remarks to me, so of course, this is beyond imagination. In various places and countries around the world, a truly broad-minded world-class leader with vision and a little more common sense would not choose such an occasion to say this kind of things. If one talks about collusion with foreign forces, this is precisely a piece of hard evidence. This is tantamount to telling some foreigners, or people of the Eight-Nation Allied Forces, that that was the way things are done in Hong Kong. This is one point.
Therefore, in getting this sort of outcome, in fact, he must be held accountable and the same applies to the Information Coordinator, Andrew FUNG. Why did he offer such advice to LEUNG Chun-ying? Did he give him any advice? Or do all people make decisions and act on their own, thinking that what they do was right and doing whatever comes to their mind?
On another occasion, that is, at a weekend tea forum held at the Government House, he told all people attending the tea forum ― maybe some Members of the pro-establishment camp here were also present ― that it was necessary to guard against the remarks made by this Kenneth CHAN because I once asked in an interview, "Can our students imagine what would happen if one day, this five-star red flag is no longer hoisted? When the historical responsibilities are saddled on your shoulders, what political systems would you LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9395 choose?" In fact, it is perfectly normal to ask such questions in classes in universities. What I teach is comparative politics, which compares political systems. My study and my academic pursuits are also related to the rise and fall and the decay and degeneration of communist parties, as well as the successes and failures in democratization.
Therefore, to ask students these questions and conceive such a scenario, so that all parties can have a debate is perfectly natural and reasonable. I cannot see anything against which we must be warned. Certainly, my classes are always open, so if this "kiddo" called LEUNG Chun-ying knows nothing or does not know what politics is, or he has never taken any course in politics 101 and therefore wants to attend my classes and exchange views a little bit, he is most welcome to do so. However, do not snipe at others behind closed doors. After that, a host of idle and irrelevant people, including Mr Andrew FUNG, went about writing articles and launching propaganda offensives, engaging in attacks à la the Cultural Revolution. In fact, these are the actions of narrow-minded people. Why could he not lay this on the table for discussion? Then, he goes round querying other people, asking this person and that person if they are patriotic and if they profess themselves to be Chinese.
Andrew FUNG is really laughable. He went round picking fights, that is, to challenge other people, so other people asked him in retort, "I am a Chinese but are you the one whose pen-name is '金鐘仁'?" Then, he shut up. The Government displays such a low standard of governance, such a poor quality and such low competence. Since the reunification, one Chief Executive is worse than the one before and each Chief Executive cannot compare favourably with his predecessor. Having come to the present situation, simply put, many intellectuals have the impression that the Government is anti-intellectual and causes great disturbance to the public.
We study political science. The study of politics is very simple. The existence of a state is geared towards the interests of the people. Therefore, we do not place the state above the people, since the state exists precisely for the sake of the people. If there are different views, interests and stances among the people and as a result, they level criticisms, make accusations and even consider bringing about a revolution, these are the issues studied, explored and debated frequently by us in political science when considering this topic, so why is it necessary for you to sound any alarm? When has the governance in Hong Kong become so "mainlandized", and rapidly for that matter, and when has it crumbled 9396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 so seriously, that we have reached such a pass? When has Hong Kong changed so much that it is now necessary to study all-out the confidential papers decreed by XI Jinping nowadays, that is, we cannot come into contact with universal values of the West and it is necessary to impose a ban on the seven or nine "taboo topics" in universities? You toe the line of the Central Authorities closely, in the hope that President XI ― XI Jinping ― would look with favour upon you, so that you can continue to linger on and get by despite the low popularity rating and public contempt for you, content with mere survival, manipulating us to achieve your ends by oppressing us on the one hand and exploiting us on the other.
On Mainland China, there is this saying "拉大旗作虎皮" (hoist a banner as the tiger's hide to intimidate others). Hoisting the five-star red flag, you are using it like a tiger's hide, exploiting the tiger's might, behaving menacingly and barking everywhere. In fact, can he intimidate anyone? He surely cannot intimidate me as I am still standing here, alive and well.
Of course, he has his own rationale. Chairman, perhaps you also know full well about this point because relatively speaking, you are more well versed in the mode of action and thinking of the Communist Party of China. He is really like this, thinking that he will get credit for doing so and that he will have the chance of getting more marks. Then, he even went round telling people everywhere, "I have already warned Dr Kenneth CHAN, so he should have exercised restraint by now.". And the homework is considered delivered. This is really laughable. This is really very low in level, very low in intelligence. However, there is nothing we can do. Under such a system, the amount of wisdom that can be taken on board is only that much, so it is someone of such standard, quality and level who took up the post of the Chief Executive and the people hired by him are also like this. In particular, those people the closest to him are all people of such quality. There are far too many of them, so many that it is not possible to talk about them all.
In a series of written questions raised in relation to the special Finance Committee meetings of the Legislative Council and at its follow-up meetings, I singled out the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs for criticism and Secretary Raymond TAM is also one of the Secretaries whose remunerations have to be deducted. I asked him, "You want to wage a battle for public opinion? Fine. Shall we hold a proper and large-scale debate on constitutional reform?" Not that this has not been done before. A debate between Ms Audrey EU and Donald TSANG was once held. This being so, why is the standard of LEUNG Chun-ying and his team even lower and why do they have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9397 even less courage than Donald TSANG and his team? Donald TSANG also made an appearance to have a debate for once. Although there was a great difference in ability and it was also clear which party was superior, at least, they were still like "guys from Hong Kong" who had a go no matter what, were they not? Moreover, after having a go, he was going to leave office soon, so he really did not have any baggage as he did not intend to run for re-election. If LEUNG Chun-ying wants to be re-elected, he should be more ambitious. Since he thinks that he is in the right and truth is in his hands, why dare he not come out?
Chairman, however, I also found that the Government had allocated several million dollars to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, so what is this funding for? It is to enable primary schools, secondary schools and tertiary education institutions to hold debates related to the Basic Law. In other words, LEUNG Chun-ying cannot compare favourably even with primary school students. The Government used public funds and allocated them to various organizations for organizing debates related to the Basic Law. This is actually desirable as supporting and opposing views can both be expressed. Chairman, you and I also serve frequently as judges in debates and on several occasions, we were present in the same debate venues. These debates are desirable, are they not? Different views can be set out and debated. The provisions of the Basic Law can be debated and constitutional reform can be debated. This is all very fine and these occasions are all about persuasion, reasoning, concepts and rhetoric. They can enlighten the public as well as elevate and enhance the standard, quality and culture of civil society. If he comes out to have a debate, he may be able to persuade the public successfully but he does not even want to do this kind of things.
What did he choose to do? It was to find his own friends and form small circles, just as he hid in the Government House to host weekend tea forums, preparing the venue, laying out the carpets, then appeared suddenly and left after saying a few words. Then ― this is again the typical reflexive thinking of LEUNG Chun-ying ― you must not come and cause disturbance in my fold, as you are so uncivilized and lack civility. This is how taking flight and fleeing helter-skelter is like, that is, such is the scene and the situation in the so-called battle for public opinion waged by him. Why can some matters not be done properly? Since he is so serious, he should hold a major debate in a focused manner and attract the attention of the whole city to it, and he should assume such a major responsibility, should he not? Yet, he shirked the responsibility, so how 9398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 can he talk about a battle for public opinion like other people? As regards holding a referendum, the SAR Government is even more afraid of doing so, is it not? He dares not let all members of the public cast votes by way of "one person, one vote" to make decisions directly in a democratic manner, rather, he is dodging all the time. There is nothing of the sort, so we can only let the Government do whatever it pleases.
Then, the Government even shifted the responsibility to other people. Frankly speaking, if the constitutional reform proposal is to gain passage, it must clear this hurdle of the Legislative Council. I absolutely understand and also respect my constitutional responsibility, and all Members also have such a responsibility. However, precisely because of this responsibility, it is clear that after this constitutional reform proposal has been negatived, naturally, the greater bulk of the responsibility will rest on the SAR Government. The proposal put forward by it fails to convince the Legislative Council, a sufficient number of Members to support and pass it. For this reason, it is only right to assume responsibility by resigning and stepping down, rather than telling people, "Kick them out. They are obstructing us.".
You can imagine that to LEUNG Chun-ying, this is the logic behind this kind of power struggle, is it not? This Member of the Executive Council called CHEUNG Chi-kong ― if you ask me, again, he is someone with a low level of education ― he wrote an article saying that if we negatived the proposal this time around, there would never be any in the future. What does "there will never be any in the future" mean? Has he ever read the Basic Law? What do Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law say? It is to ultimately attain the goal of universal suffrage. Given his assertion, is it true that there will no longer be any need to talk about universal suffrage in the future if no universal suffrage can be introduced this time around? Is it true that in terms of the spirit or the future actions of the Government, Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law will be violated and no further move towards universal suffrage will be made because you people are posing obstacles?
I wish to tell the public a very simple fact: After the proposal has been negatived, the constitutional reform must be reactivated. If LEUNG Chun-ying says he definitely will not do so, we can simply vote for people who insist on opposing LEUNG Chun-ying seeking re-election in the Legislative Council Election in 2016, to vote for such simple and clear election platforms, election platforms that entirely seek to launch a campaign to topple LEUNG Chun-ying, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9399 vote for such Members, political parties and groupings and in this way, turn the Legislative Council Election in 2016 into a de facto referendum with only one issue: "LEUNG Chun-ying step down", kick him out and in this way, there will be hope for Hong Kong.
Therefore, negativing this constitutional reform proposal can give ourselves a glimmer of hope and this is very important. This is a campaign that defends the core values and dignity of Hong Kong people, so we absolutely cannot succumb and I hope that such academics as Prof Albert CHEN will know that what is bogus cannot be made genuine and that no matter what proposals they put forward, they cannot turn something bogus genuine.
I so submit.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this speech, I will focus on my amendment, which resolves that head 122 be reduced by $80,000,000 in respect of subhead 103 to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure relating to the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF)'s rewards and special services.
Chairman, like the call of reducing the annual estimated expenditure for the Complaints Against Police Office, I have proposed the amendment concerned for nearly two decades. Why am I saying this? When Hong Kong was under British rule, such expenditure was actually accounted to the Special Branch, which was then headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, but the expenditure actually came under the direct charge of the Political Adviser and the Governor rather than the Commissioner of Police. Of course, there is no Deputy Commissioner of Police taking charge of the Special Branch nowadays. How is the expenditure used and monitored? Does our Chief Executive or anyone have any system which grants them direct access to the reports or allows them to give commands? We have no idea at all.
Chairman, many Honourable colleagues said that compared with the tens of billion dollars of expenditure of the Police, $80 million is just a small amount. However, Members have to bear in mind that this $80 million actually does not include the Security Wing's expenditure on manpower and equipment for the security work similar to that undertaken by the Special Branch in the past, or the expenditure on manpower and equipment for the Criminal Intelligence Bureau or 9400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 paparazzi, or the expenditure on manpower and equipment for the technical services group or the wing engaged in telephone tapping or other covert operations, or the hundreds of million dollars spent on various computer-related items, like file storage and searching, the purchase of telecommunications equipment or their future updates.
What does this $80 million include? Some suggests that it may include the informers' fees; for cases which are clearly criminal in nature, like drugs, does the expenditure involved account for the entire $80 million? No one knows. The Government does not give an account of it, and monitoring is lacking. In fact, in other parliaments, a special group may be set up under them, like the intelligence committee formed by both houses in the United States; the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom may appoint some persons of high public standing to form a special committee for monitoring, and monitoring by the Parliament is possible. In comparison, no one in this Council may raise any solid or meaningful question or obtain information for monitoring purposes.
To put it simply, the question I have asked over a dozen or 20 years is, can the authorities simply or at least provide two figures concerning this $80 million, namely one on the manpower and one on the equipment? The Government's reply is that a mere breakdown of the $80 million into two figures cannot be made, because those with ulterior motives may then be able to follow up the two figures over a long stretch of time and thus seize the opportunities in advance for some secret or unlawful actions. I consider this a sheer insult to the wisdom of the public or Members.
Since LEUNG Chun-ying became the Chief Executive, the community as a whole has all along had very little trust in him. If this Chief Executive has direct access to the information collected by an intelligence unit and he will follow it up, make a report or pursue responsibility, members of the public will only feel more worried. In a luncheon named Thursday Lunch, LEUNG Chun-ying said ― despite the private nature of the occasion, which was held months ago, it was attended by 100 to 200 of those from the political and business sectors, and he of course has said the same thing in other public occasions ― he called on guests to take note of the confidential emails disclosed over the months or a year as they involved Hong Kong's safety. He proceeded to say that they could rest assured, and the reason cited by him was that "our intelligence unit will follow it up".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9401
What intelligence unit in Hong Kong will follow up the information in question? Are such emails obtained by the HKPF's intelligence unit? Is it through hackers or other means? That was the first time LEUNG Chun-ying pointed out ― the occasion was private but not public ― that there is an intelligence unit in Hong Kong to protect its safety. Of course, intelligence units abound worldwide for the protection of safety, but the problem is that there is a need to give an account to an elected parliament of their manpower and equipment, organizational structure as well as the discipline they exercise. Nevertheless, we are now in a situation where we have no idea of how this $80 million is used. We may even query if the Criminal Intelligence Bureau or paparazzi is really following up criminal intelligence for cases like robbery, murder and arson, or is engaged in political surveillance.
A retired seasoned police officer once told me an unpleasant experience of his colleagues from the Criminal Intelligence Bureau. In the course of handling a drug case, they were suddenly told to track another person. They wondered who that person was, and then realized he was just a second- or third-tier political figure. They needed to observe if he would bring a coffin or a dummy for the protest on the next day, as well as whether he would burn it or hurl it in any direction. His colleagues felt most dejected for being suddenly told to abort tracking a key drug trafficker in a big drug case.
As for the intelligence unit LEUNG Chun-ying referred to, does it include the Police only, or also the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), other agencies or even entities more covert in nature? I have no idea, but that $80 million is free of any monitoring, and no one knows what is going on. Chairman, the so-called monitoring by the Police is rather flimsy. Interestingly, as for the questions we raise regarding individual headquarters and divisions every year, the figures provided in the replies are all neatly rounded up. Each year, the reply is 10 times or so, and the figures are pretty much the same. In addition, the Audit Commission has never really carried out any value for money audit on this, and they do not even see a need to do so. If that $80 million remains unknown and mysterious, should we allow this to go on?
Chairman, there is an Operations Review Committee under the ICAC, and the Police have no corresponding committee in respect of monitoring. Being closed-door in nature, the said committee of the ICAC reviews operations undertaken by the ICAC in a confidential manner, so some matters can be sorted 9402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 out behind the door. Moreover, the committee used to see participation by people from across the political spectrum. However, we recently found that the committee is now chaired by Miss Maria TAM.
I am not sure if Miss Maria TAM is able to take up this supposedly unbiased post in the mind of most Hong Kong people to monitor for the public the covert operations undertaken by the ICAC in a fair and independent manner, or if she is loyal to another party and she will think for it and serve it. There is no such committee in the Police to monitor the relevant expenditure, but the committee dedicated to monitoring some of the ICAC's covert operations has become one devoid of credibility or trusted by no one. What is our Chief Executive doing?
Chairman, we are unable to determine if this $80 million is an expenditure used for protecting people's safety and maintaining law and order, or for collecting political intelligence for the Chief Executive or carrying out political surveillance for somebody. Will this sum of money sacrifice people's privacy or rights, or will it be used to combat criminals in a reasonable and rightful manner?
Chairman, if we cannot effect reasonable monitoring under this system, we can only resort to reduction in order to compel the Government to carry out reform. Chairman, as we mentioned beforehand, as regards the kind of information that should be permanently stored in the criminal intelligence computer system as well as which should not be stored, the Government is reluctant to do any meaningful review. Hence, we have no choice but to reduce the relevant expenditure.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session I am speaking on Amendment No 25, which seeks to deduct from head 21 in respect of subhead 000, an amount equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Chief Executive for 12 months.
Chairman, the annual examination of the Budget is the occasion for us to settle scores with LEUNG Chun-ying for his malicious words and deeds made in the past year. According to the latest survey findings released by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in this March, the rating by members of the public of the overall performance of LEUNG Chun-ying has been on the decline for three consecutive months, with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9403 the latest one being 41.7 only. The survey also showed that, while 44.6% of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction towards the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), only less than 20% of the respondents were satisfied with it. Therefore, public opinion has it clearly that LEUNG Chun-ying is unworthy to be the Chief Executive of Hong Kong.
LEUNG Chun-ying is blind to the equitable rights of Hong Kong people. When he was interviewed by foreign media in October 2014, he said that opening up the nominating procedure to that half of the population whose monthly income was less than $14,000 would let policies skewed towards the lower class. Chairman, this is blatantly discrimination against the poor. LEUNG Chun-ying regards the poor as the outcastes. Anyone making such kind of remarks in any democratic country shall be doomed to step down from office, yet only LEUNG Chun-ying can be so shameless as to cling to his office of the Chief Executive. Moreover, the stance taken by the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration towards constitutional reform is also indifferent to Hong Kong People's right to democracy. On 31 August last year, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) made a decision regarding the constitutional reform in Hong Kong, which imposed hurdles by "shutting three doors" for the Chief Executive election by universal suffrage in 2017. The election for the Legislative Council by full universal suffrage is even nowhere in sight. On 22 April this year, Mrs Carrie LAM announced the ultimate proposal of constitutional reform which was actually a reflection of LEUNG Chun-ying's indiscriminate acceptance of the 31 August Decision. It deprives Hong Kong people of their right to "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy", confounds right with wrong, and calls a stag a horse. LEUNG Chun-ying is the one to be held primarily responsible for the blunders with this proposal of constitutional reform.
Chairman, how would the malicious deeds done by LEUNG Chun-ying ― especially those in last year ― be only the making of the "$14,000 outcastes" remark and the bulldozing of the proposal of constitutional reform as a bogus universal suffrage founded on confusion of right and wrong? Likewise, LEUNG Chun-ying ignores the contribution of the religious and sports sectors. On 25 October 2014, LEUNG Chun-ying met reporters after attending the welcoming ceremony for Hong Kong's Incheon Asian Para Games athletes. He particularly stressed in his speech that while the financial sector had made economic contribution, the religious and sports sectors made none. LEUNG Chun-ying can even talk in this way, so he is by nature a man who sets eyes 9404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 solely on profits or gains. He is the head of the SAR, yet he only knows superficially the importance and functions of various sectors of the community. As we all know, the economic benefits that the sports sector brings are readily comprehensible. For instance, the hosting of spectacular sports events can generate ticket proceeds, create job opportunities and promote tourism, while full and active public participation in sports may also foster growth of the market for sports merchandises. Since the health of members of the public might improve as well, which could be helpful to the Government in saving medical costs, there would also be indirect economic benefits that might not be taken lightly. Therefore, no wonder why Sarah LEE Wai-sze, the world women's champion racing cyclist from Hong Kong, has then left a message on her Facebook account to refute LEUNG Chun-ying, saying that he should put much hard work in religion, history and the history of the Olympics, with sarcasm to his superficiality and ignorance.
Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying is low in personal integrity and conduct, and this is consistent with his character of setting eyes solely on profits or gains. In last October, an Australian newspaper exposed that after LEUNG Chun-ying had assumed office, he accepted secret payments of £4 million in total from an Australian company known as UGL in 2012 and 2013 respectively, as reward for making such arrangements as provision of advisory services and assistance in retaining staff, as well as non-competition. As the Chief Executive of the SAR, LEUNG Chun-ying dared to accept during his term of office a handsome reward without making any declaration of it all along, and continued to honour his service pledge to UGL.
Apart from the intricate interest with the business sector when he was a businessman in the past, LEUNG Chun-ying has been giving away political rewards and practising political nepotism since he became the Chief Executive. LEUNG Chun-ying already wanted to introduce the structure of "five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux" before taking his office, yet it became a "stillborn" proposal for being unclear in its demarcation of responsibilities. Early this year, the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration sought funding from the Legislative Council for establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB). While the ITB was again unclear in its demarcation of responsibilities, the selection criteria for its Secretary are also vague; yet no clear account was given specifically on the future scope of work. Furthermore, in order to facilitate earlier vetting of the funding application for the ITB, LEUNG Chun-ying even stopped at nothing to have four livelihood-related items LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9405 and the proposal for the Fisheries Development Loan Fund, which were higher in priority than the funding application for the ITB, withdrawn in a hegemonic manner from the Agenda of the meeting of the Finance Committee. LEUNG Chun-ying criticized Members for "filibustering", yet he himself is the one who disregards the dignity of this Council most, acts arbitrarily, practises executive hegemony and manipulates the Legislative Council Agenda. That is why the ITB ended up a "stillbirth" early this year. As for Mr Nicholas YANG, the former Vice President of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University who was widely rumoured to be the select for the post of Secretary for Innovation and Technology, LEUNG Chun-ying dared appoint him as the advisor on innovation and technology, as well as a non-official Member of the Executive Council with a monthly honorarium of over $76,000. Obviously, the establishment of the ITB by LEUNG Chun-ying is for the purpose of placing his own supporters to expand his political clout, so as to pave the way for his second term of office. I hate these deeds bitterly.
Chairman, apart from practising cronyism politically for strengthening his political power, LEUNG Chun-ying even deliberately incited the masses to struggle with each other. He also intentionally provoked contradictions between the pan-democrats and the SAR Government. In this March, LEUNG Chun-ying brought into full play his true colours of pugnacity and belligerency. While speaking at a forum on investment, he stated openly that he had to denounce Members of the pan-democratic camp, and urged the people present to register as voters to vote the pan-democrats out with their ballots in the coming District Council and Legislative Council elections. How ridiculous! LEUNG Chun-ying won merely 689 votes in a coterie election, yet he just turned a blind eye to his low popularity rating and dared urge voters publicly to vote Members out. He is not qualified to do so.
Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying has a flawed integrity and is a man of cronyism. Being pugnacious and belligerent in nature, he also provokes social contradictions. Hiding up his problematic administration by smearing others, he is in fact acting like a squid in covering up the emptiness and blunders under his rule.
LEUNG Chun-ying released his Policy Address in January this year; yet right at the beginning of his speech, he strayed away to specifically point his finger at Undergrad ― the official publication of the Hong Kong University Students' Union. He said the students advocated that Hong Kong should find a 9406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 way to self-reliance and self-determination, so we must stay alert to such ideas. However, Hong Kong people all know that Undergrad was discussing the formation and way out of the Hong Kong nationality in the nature of academic discussion, but our Chief Executive dared to criticize a students' publication by virtue of his official capacity during his delivery of this Policy Address, with a view to creating white terror and suppressing the freedoms of speech and publication.
Instead of attending to his proper business, LEUNG Chun-ying wages denunciations and struggles against students. Also, this Policy Address by him is flooded with policies flattering the Communist Party of China while betraying Hong Kong, without proposing any effective policy in response to the livelihood and housing problems that are grave concerns to Hong Kong people. Paragraph 22 of this Policy Address points out that the SAR Government has to support the 13th National Five-Year Plan, which is the 13th Five-Year Plan (FYP) of Mainland China, and has already submitted its proposals to the Central Government in Beijing. However, the FYP is the economic and social development plan of a socialist government. Under the FYP, the communist Government assumes an absolutely leading position in the redistribution of resources given the condition of insufficient resources. Therefore, the FYP is actually different in principle from the capitalist system practised in Hong Kong over the years.
Furthermore, in my opinion, supporting the FYP of the Mainland would jeopardize the interests of Hong Kong. The paper from the Commission on Strategic Development shows that in November last year, Mr SHIU Sin-por, Head of the Central Policy Unit, already suggested that when formulating the proposals of Hong Kong for the FYP, Hong Kong had to consider proposals which might not bring any immediate benefits to Hong Kong, but would be beneficial to the country as a whole. In other words, that is putting the Mainland interests above the interests of Hong Kong, and giving up the decision making power of the SAR Government in the formulation of public policies to the Central Government in Beijing. Chairman, Article 22 of the Basic Law states that the Central Government in Beijing cannot interfere in the affairs which Hong Kong administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. There are definitely no grounds for us to sacrifice the power of the SAR Government protected by the Basic Law for the sake of participating in the FYP of the Mainland. In this Policy Address by LEUNG Chun-ying, it is clearly written that Hong Kong should support the 13th FYP of the Mainland. This is a naked betrayal of the interests of Hong Kong people. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9407
Chairman, as regards the problems with housing and retirement protection that are grave concerns to Hong Kong people, we cannot see in this Policy Address by LEUNG Chun-ying any concrete measure or proposal made in response to the pressing needs of Hong Kong people. It is stated in this Policy Address that a total of 77 100 public rental housing (PRH) units are forecast to be completed in the five-year period from 2014 to 2019, and a production target of around 20 000 PRH units a year will be maintained for the next decade. However, LEUNG Chun-ying also pointed out that the support of local communities and other people is of crucial importance. This means that if local communities and other people do not give their support, the pledge made by LEUNG Chun-ying will become a "bounced cheque". Moreover, he will also shirk the responsibilities for the blunders in his administration to others.
Meanwhile, even if some 70 000 PRH units will indeed be completed in the next five years, the current number of applications on the Waiting List for PRH has already exceeded 270 000, which is 3.5 times more than the five-year volume of PRH production promised by the Government. Besides, the Housing Authority approved an upward adjustment of the income and asset limits for PRH applicants at its meeting in March this year. It is estimated that the number of eligible applicants for PRH will increase by some 130 000 under this new measure, to be compounded by the endless flow of new arrivals into Hong Kong. If the Government fails to adjust upward the target volume of PRH production, only more Hong Kong people in queue for PRH will be denied their turn for flat allocation, such that they cannot live in peace and work with contentment.
On retirement protection, LEUNG Chun-ying only set aside $50 billion for the Retirement Protection Fund, but he fell short of making any specific proposal on how to use it. Yet to the "non-means-tested, universal and uniform payment level" demo-grant proposed by the team led by Prof Nelson CHOW, it is only put in the contents of this Policy Address that a considerable number of people in society opposed those options that are non-means-tested. It is the intention of LEUNG Chun-ying to use public views as his handle to negative the proposal of demo-grant made by Prof CHOW, which is rather obvious that the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration wants to keep procrastinating on the universal retirement protection.
Chairman, the people of Hong Kong will not forget the pet allusion often stressed by LEUNG Chun-ying in the early days of his election campaign to his bringing along "a stool, a notebook and a pen" to listen to people whenever people wanted to speak up. However, the scandals of LEUNG Chun-ying came 9408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 one after another since he assumed office, and he has been getting worse with his popularity rating. Moreover, he condoned the Police in deploying anti-riot squads to fire tear gas and administer battery to members of public in peaceful assembly during the Umbrella Movement. Hong Kong people and our history will note these evil deeds by LEUNG Chun-ying. Therefore, I hereby seek to move that the emolument of LEUNG Chun-ying for next year be reduced to condemn him for what he did in the past, and the evil deeds such as his administrative blunders and scandals.
Chairman, I so submit.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Actually, Chairman, I wish to talk about LEUNG Chun-ying again, but since other Members said that they were bored, I will not talk about him for the time being. Now I would like to say a few words about issues concerning the Security Bureau, the Commissioner of Police and the Department of Justice (DoJ), which were also mentioned by a number of Members earlier.
Chairman, since I am a typical example of subjects of indiscriminate arrest and prosecution, I am qualified to share my personal experiences here. Actually, all government departments may make mistakes, but they might not be held accountable for the mistakes made. However, should a government department make mistakes deliberately and keep doing it again and again for an improper purpose, it must be condemned.
Before all else, Chairman, I would like to discuss issues concerning the DoJ. As we all know, the Secretary for Justice is in charge of criminal injunctions. However, a person who wished to apply for an injunction was advised by him that there was no need to do so for no reason. Instead, the DoJ offered assistance in executing the injunction and spent a lot of money on suing the parties in question.
Chairman, we can see in a court of law that the goddess of justice is blindfolded, implying that people appearing before the Court will definitely be tried in an impartial manner. In comparison, legal representatives of both sides should also keep their eyes closed because they are merely seeking relief from the Court. Public officers using the public funds must act in the best interest of society and avoid by all means intervening in issues which can otherwise be dealt with by civil means. Instead, both sides should be encouraged to seek legal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9409 relief on their own. It is indeed a waste of public money for Rimsky YUEN to provide relief during the Umbrella Movement to members of the community who could originally have applied for relief from the Court. Chairman, the judicial profession has been shocked by this highly controversial event. Not only must I treat it as a classical example, but I have also been victimized.
Simply put, if road occupation is considered to be a criminal offence, Andy TSANG should enforce the law. As pointed out by many pro-government Members, police officers should enforce the law because the road occupiers that day had obviously committed a criminal offence. The consequences of the Police's failure to enforce the law due to political considerations ― LEUNG Chun-ying was afraid of suppressing a mass movement rashly ― should definitely be borne by the Government. Actually, people applying for injunctions to prohibit road occupation did not mean to target the occupiers. They just hoped to bring home to the Government the message that they would apply for judicial reviews due to its failure of enforcing the law, in the hope that it would discharge its duty of maintaining public order and peace. Nevertheless, people intending to apply for injunctions had failed to do so, probably because they were afraid of the Government or they were requested by the Government not to do so for fear of wasting the Court's time. The application for an injunction per se was something that could be done to inhibit certain acts by another party, albeit a wrong target had been picked. However, Rimsky YUEN's act of applying to the Court to provide assistance to those people for no reason aggravated the problem. Firstly, one of the most important principles of applications for injunctions is feasibility, which is also a very important consideration. Secondly, is an application for injunction the last resort? Are the persons concerned the most important victims? Otherwise, even a Sha Tau Kok resident can apply for an injunction for being victimized direct as a result of road occupation. So long as the degree of impact on a person is greater than others, he or she will have the power to restrict the constitutional right enjoyed by others.
I have once said that the law-enforcement authorities should take criminal actions, not civil actions, against people exercising his constitutional right unlawfully. Let us examine the case involving the siege of the Apple Daily headquarters. Why did the Police not apply for a criminal injunction on behalf of the Apple Daily? Hong Kong people often stress the importance of press freedom. We are now talking about the siege of the newspaper office to prevent it from distributing newspapers. From this we can see the Government's biased 9410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 attitude. The Apple Daily has indeed suffered greater loss than anyone else in Hong Kong, why? It is because the blockage of the entrance to its headquarters made distribution of its newspapers impossible. Secondly, though I have no idea whether or not the Apple Daily's claim that it has hundreds of thousands of readers is true, significant public interest is at stake. Nevertheless, both Rimsky YUEN and the Police turned a blind eye to the siege. On the other hand, proactive actions were taken by Rimsky YUEN due to opposition to the Government.
I should have stopped talking at this point, but I still wish to discuss an ugly incident that happened to me. When I visited Mong Kok in the name of civil disobedience to examine the enforcement of the injunction by the Government, I was arrested by the Police and then "charged on two counts for the same offence". Chairman, this is totally in breach of common law. In other words, the Police and the DoJ have collaborated in "charging me on two counts for the same offence" and detained me for 48 hours by citing a random reason, just to prevent me from attending the meetings held in this Council. Despite my explanation that I had to attend meetings in this Council, the Police said to me, "Sorry, Mr LEUNG, you are under arrest. I could not stop you if you manage to escape from the police station. So long as you are under my jurisdiction, I will definitely not let you go to the Legislative Council to attend meetings because I am more powerful than you." As a digression, this point was already discussed when I was in prison.
Since the incident turned so ugly, I later approached the High Court and told the Judge that a person could not possibly be "charged on two counts for the same offence" under common law. Moreover, it was wrong to prohibit someone from setting foot in Mong Kok just because he was found guilty of an offence.
Chairman, after wasting a lot of manpower and resources, I finally got back $68.9 in cost. The authorities were even scolded by the Judge that there was no ground to do so. Moreover, the Judge could not see any justifications for doing so. As a victim in this case, I have lost 48 hours for no reason. Moreover, I was prohibited from visiting Mong Kok to buy books and meet with my girlfriend and friends for 40 days. It was all because the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary for Justice share a very clear political goal in law enforcement and prosecution, which is completely compatible with the view of the public security, the prosecution and judicial departments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9411
Fortunately, Chairman, the situation in Hong Kong has not deteriorated so badly. Moreover, the Court still demonstrates a small degree of resistance ― it will distance itself from the undesirable elements when things become too outrageous. Therefore, in evaluating whether a government department has made a mistake, I think it should not be condemned immediately whenever a mistake is made. When I said that a certain department had made repeated mistakes, I meant that the same mistake had been made over and over again. Yesterday, many Members said that due to the Police's production of inadequate evidence and the Secretary for Justice's indiscriminate act of instituting prosecutions, there were a large number of cases of acquittal, cases with no evidence adduced, and cases with charges dropped. Actually, the dropping of charges is different from adducing no evidence. Chairman, the former is caused by the abortion of the prosecution procedure when something has gone wrong, whereas the latter is attributed to the evidence presented in court ― since I was involved in one of these cases, I can hit the nail on its head. I have to point out that it was a goodwill gesture for a group of policemen to approach the Legislative Council Complex on 28 September without carrying any weapons to avoid the occurrence of conflicts. When I asked the policemen why they besieged the Legislative Council Complex, they said that a person suspected of having assaulted a sergeant was believed to be hiding inside the Complex. When I asked them the whereabouts of the suspect, they pointed at an acquaintance of mine who was working for the Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre. He was not at all physically tough. I told the unarmed policemen that they were in a very dangerous situation because they were besieged by several hundred people. During our discussion, emotions were running increasingly high. However, after I had asked the dozens of policemen on the scene whom was assaulted, and even though a Chief Inspector also asked his subordinates if any one of them had been assaulted, no hand was raised. Finally, I asked, "How should we deal with the matter since no one had been assaulted?" But then, the Chief Inspector requested me to let the Police take away the suspect. In order to prevent a peaceful struggle from turning into a fight as a result of provocation, I had no alternative but to let him carry the suspect away.
Actually, the Police remain unrepentant to the end by insisting on instituting prosecution, though the alleged incident has never happened. Fortunately, the scene captured on film had aroused the Judge's suspicion. Although the Police maintained that several dozen policemen involved in the 9412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 tracking down of the suspect were besieged by a mob, the video footage showed that there was no response from the policemen when a Legislative Council Member asked the one alleged to have been assaulted to identity himself. However, according to the Police, the sergeant in question was frightened and in pain. As a result, several dozen policemen were dispatched to track down the suspect even at the risk of causing conflicts when they charged into the crowds. Chairman, the repeated occurrence of similar incidents makes us understand why the Police Force could have built up a "black" image in the hearts of the people.
Chairman, if I were in your position, I would respect your rights, just like you would respect mine. Most importantly, we would respect each other even if we switched our positions. I once asked the Secretary if seven people ― The Secretary is not present at the moment, but this one is a medical practitioner ― I once told the Secretary to imagine that seven people were caught on film handcuffing, not to mention kicking and beating, verbally insulting, or swearing at, a policeman, and then he was asked whether or not he would put up with such behaviour or arrest the seven persons and institute prosecutions against them immediately. However, the Secretary declined to give me a reply. As the saying goes, "After eating pig's blood, one will discharge black excrement". Am I right? Now the seven persons are still at large without being sanctioned. It is often said that the Police cannot possibly "arrest the wrong person". If there is anything wrong, the Judge would be notified so that he can order the release of the person. As the saying goes, "The Police arrest people but the Court releases them".
What is police prestige? I have been advised by many people not to condemn the policemen, but I am only scolding the bad cops who lack integrity. People should not criticize others for scolding the policemen should they tolerate the bad cops behaving in a violent and domineering manner, colluding with thieves, and assaulting members of the public, right? By the same token, LEUNG Chun-ying should not complain of being scolded by me when all government officials and the pro-government camp rise to his defence because he ought to be scolded.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9413
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, the echo is particularly loud as few Members are present here. I hope the Chairman can act according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure to summon Mr WONG Kwok-hing back to the Chamber since he is wasting some of his remuneration.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members will please return to their seats. Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the speech on the Department of Justice (DoJ) delivered by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now was marvellous. If I were him, I would have probably requested a headcount before giving the speech so that Members would sit quietly in their seats and listen to the accusations which Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just made against the work of the DoJ over the past year. All of them are well-founded. He simply talked about his own personal experiences without referring to any script, and we could feel the blood and tears in his stories.
The items of reduction proposed by us against the DoJ in this Budget have seen the participation of the greatest number of Members over the years. They are Amendments No 227 to 250, a total of 24 amendments. Among them, the first one proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, that means Amendment No 227, is the most overbearing. He proposes to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for salaries under personal emoluments of the staff of the DoJ in a broad-brush manner. That means scrapping the whole department. The amount involved exceeds $800 million. However, I consider Mr Albert CHAN's amendment much too ruthless. If the whole DoJ is removed, Hong Kong will indeed be at a loss as to what to do. For this reason, I hope Members will support Amendment No 239 proposed by me to deduct $3.7 million, approximately equivalent to the 9414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 annual estimated expenditure on the salaries of the Secretary for Justice. When there are problems with the DoJ, the one who should take the responsibility is certainly its highest person-in-charge, Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN.
The Legislative Council actually does not have too many opportunities to comment on the work of the DoJ. In the past, few committees proposed motion debates on the work of the DoJ because we held that being a vital part of the judicial system, the DoJ should carry out prosecution work in a fair and impartial manner. Law enforcement is the responsibility of the Police, prosecution, the DoJ, and trial, the Court. However, in the past two days, we have indeed heard a lot of speeches made by Members, including my view that the prosecutions instituted by the DoJ in handling protests of the masses during the Occupy Movement were sloppy, casual and ill-organized, which made us suspect there was a political purpose in collaboration with the Police, as well as Members' queries that the DoJ would selectively delay prosecution or exert pressure for prompt prosecution in different cases, observing no principle at all. With regard to the handling of injunction orders, there was also a big problem with the role of the DoJ. I hope Members will bring it up for more discussions if we have the time in the future.
Hence, I hope Members will support these 24 amendments concerning the DoJ so as to exert appropriate pressure on this important department. I also think that after listening to our criticisms of the DoJ, Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN should find an occasion to give a response. It is not right that we are the only ones who talk but he cannot respond. If he does not say anything to refute us, members of the public will regard our remarks as reasonable and even substantiated. In that case, where will the neutrality and impartiality of the DoJ lie? The only institutions the public can trust now are the courts at various levels. Even if there is a problem at a lower court, they can seek justice at a higher court or even the Court of Final Appeal.
Chairman, next, I will continue to speak on "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau". The amendment number is 450. It seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau for the publicity work relating to the public consultation on constitutional reform (excluding the staff cost). The amount involved in 2015-2016 is $5 million.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9415
I hope all Hong Kong people will know how much money the authorities have spent on this bogus consultation exercise to market the bogus constitutional reform package. The amount spent in 2014-2015 already reached $12 million. The Government drew a conclusion prior to the consultation and then put forward a proposal which had been prepared in advance. If we do not "pocket it first", we will get nothing. Can this really be called "consultation"? Does it need such a large sum of public money? Frankly speaking, although this $5 million funding has not been approved yet, most of it has already been spent. Money is being drained. I wonder how the Government will handle the matter if we eventually pass this proposal on cutting the expenditure and do not approve the relevant funding. Will it end up in a mess? For example, will the Government default on the final payment for the television advertisements and design fees for the design and public relations companies? Or will they cut down on their original expenses to make up for the amount?
Actually the publicity work for this public consultation cannot be poorer. Let me give an example. This flyer which is designed as a simulated ballot paper carries the following lines: "To all Hong Kong people: You can vote to elect the Chief Executive. There's no reason to take it away. Let's urge the Legislative Council to endorse the universal suffrage proposal." After reading it, some discerning people pointed out that the words in these lines should not be read in this way. Instead, they should be read in a different order. The first group of words should read "there's no reason to endorse the universal suffrage proposal", and the second group of words, "take it away". The designer of this flyer must be a wise man. I wonder whether it is trickery or fate. The truth is written on the flyer like a prophecy, stating that people will "take it away" and "there's no reason to endorse the universal suffrage proposal". The authorities really should not say that they have been tricked. Perhaps there are some fighters for democracy among the persons-in-charge of these public relations and design companies, but it still had to obtain the final approval of Raymond TAM in the Government. Did he not notice it either? No, unless he actually stands on the people's side while working in the Administration and he also wishes to deliver the message that "there's no reason to endorse the universal suffrage proposal" and people should "take it away". Now that the message has been revealed, can they make a fuss and refuse to pay the bill? They can. After we cut the relevant funding, they will have no money to pay the bill.
9416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Chairman, actually my whole argument seeks to tell Members that this is a fraud. If Members concur that it is a fraud, there is no reason to agree to approving the relevant funding for the Government to conduct street deception and publicize its fraud by making use of the airwaves, public resources and the media as well as putting up a show in the districts.
Now there are only some two months from the deadline. This can no longer be called constitutional reform consultation. It is now a publicity battle. Is this consultation? What other views can be provided? The authorities are now using the last sum of money to carry out brainwashing and contend for publicity. Of course the Government has a bigger voice. As long as an official or Executive Council Member comes forward, even if there will be no revenue, television stations and newspapers will cover it in the news as a matter of course and radio stations will also arrange for interviews. Being ordinary citizens, how can we fight the Government? Hence, basically, have we already lost at the starting line? In this battle which I am talking about, even if the authorities are not granted this $5 million, they are in a far more advantageous position than others.
With regard to this proposal or fraud of bogus universal suffrage, LEUNG Chun-ying said earlier that Hong Kong people could only choose between following the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on constitutional reform or having a standstill. There is no room for concession at all. Carrie LAM, the Chief Secretary for Administration, also said that the Government would not make any deal and major concession or amendment for the sake of a few more votes from the democratic camp. It is simply like pouring ice water on our heads direct. As a result, some people have questioned whether they actually want to see the constitutional reform package passed. If they do not really wish to see it endorsed, this sum of money will be spent in vain.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
In the past few days, there were government sources which claimed that the authorities did not have any more new tactics to make the democratic camp support the constitutional reform package. It was said that when the constitutional reform package was being drafted, the maximum latitude was built in. The threshold for "members recommendation" was lowered. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9417 nomination ceiling for "members recommendation" was set at 240 votes so that no candidate would get all the votes, so on and so forth. All these are lies. We all know that "members recommendation" is bogus. It is a scam. Only the "committee nomination" counts. The proposal was finally decided at the highest level of the Central Authorities with no room for concession.
Some people have done some computations and concluded that it is necessary to control only 601 members of the nominating committee in order to control which two candidates will get the "committee nomination" in the end. As such, there is no choice at all. It is close to manipulating the election result because there will be no blank vote. For this reason, this is absolutely a proposal of false choice and bogus universal suffrage. If the democratic camp still goes ahead to accept this bogus universal suffrage in 2017, that means they accept the definition of universal suffrage given by the Communist Party of China.
Hence, Carrie LAM pointed out in her statement and the consultation ― it is the final decision rather than consultation ― paper that upon endorsement of the proposal, the historical obligation under Article 45 of the Basic Law, which is to implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong, will be completed. The future Chief Executive candidates must have the consent of more than half of the members of the nominating committee before they can get the "committee nomination". As to the question of whether we can strive for a change of the method for selecting the Chief Executive, the previous remarks have employed some sort of hypocritical rhetoric, claiming that there may still be room for enhancement in the future. That means people should "pocket it first". Although government officials do not like these three words, people in the community are discussing whether they should "pocket it first". However, now we have stopped talking about the "pocket-it-first" proposal. We do not believe it because even the authorities do not dare to say that there will certainly be universal suffrage, and the paper also indicates clearly that the passage of the proposal can be regarded as completion of the historical mission and fulfillment of the pledge in the Basic Law. On the contrary, if we refuse to accept it, there is no guarantee that it can be further revised in the future because the timetable has already been fixed. What does it mean? It means Hong Kong people are forced to make this Hobson's choice. Of course, our stand cannot be clearer. There is no need to waste any more time on discussion. Nevertheless, if this definition of universal suffrage is accepted this time, the functional constituencies, I believe, will be here to stay forever.
9418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
The Chairman has also explored what is meant by universal suffrage before. Do functional constituencies really need to be abolished? Or can nominations be made by the functional constituencies first and then the candidates in the functional constituencies be elected by universal suffrage of "one person, one vote" in 2020? If you ask me this, I will not accept it either. Nevertheless, even the officials concerned do not dare make any promise in this regard. That is to say, no one dares make any promise on the proposal of having nominations made by functional constituencies and then electing the candidates in functional constituencies by "one person, one vote". As a result, there is another comment that if we do not "pocket it first", the Legislative Council Election in 2020 will not be able to turn into full universal suffrage. This is also a hoax. For this reason, we consider that we absolutely cannot "pocket it first".
What happens in these last two months is a public opinion war. Since it is a public opinion war, it is not about facts, and it is not absolute either. Rather, the two sides are in a tug-of-war. As the Government now says it has to use this $5 million to pull the rope for itself and for the pro-establishment force, of course we need to object to it flatly and propose its deduction. Just now Mr Alan LEONG was rather clear-headed. He said the project which is under way right now is not merely aimed at canvassing votes and waging a public opinion war for the bogus proposal on universal suffrage. It also seeks to campaign for votes for the pro-establishment camp in advance for the elections in 2015 and 2016. In that case, it is all the more inappropriate to approve this sum of money.
Deputy Chairman, actually members of the public are also quite clear-headed. They have launched a movement called "territory-wide co-operation to recycle rubbish created by the political regime" to exclusively collect waste relating to the rotten proposal on bogus universal suffrage under the 31 August Decision made by the NPCSC. They will set up booths and place litter bins in the streets of the 18 districts to recover this kind of paper and pamphlets. After tearing up these things, do not toss them into the trash cans or throw them away. Use them for recycling. The Government which pretends to attach importance to environmental protection claims that these materials were printed with eco-friendly inks and recycled paper, so they can be reused. This has really saved resources. I hope that after I cut the relevant funding, the authorities will not default on payments for the outstanding bills and television advertisements.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9419
I hope Members will support this amendment to deduct this publicity expenditure of $5 million for the scam of bogus universal suffrage. I so submit.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak on heads 142 and 144, which are about the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. In Amendment No 394, I seek to reduce the expenditure estimate by $3.97 million, which is equivalent to the remuneration of the Chief Secretary for Administration for the year.
In fact, many years back then, I never thought that I would propose such an amendment, for I believed Carrie LAM was one of the government officials trusted by Hong Kong people. However, in view of her performance since October 2013, I think she has done a disservice to Hong Kong, and to put it bluntly, she has betrayed Hong Kong people. Since she has been a senior government official in Hong Kong for many years, there is no reason for her not knowing Hong Kong is at a most critical moment now. She was in senior positions during the colonial era and is now in the incumbent SAR Government, so she should know full well the aspirations of Hong Kong people and she can tell the true ones from the false ones. With the wisdom of Carrie LAM, she must know it. However, in the final proposal of 2017 universal suffrage, she has thought up such an unintelligent and ridiculous slogan, that is, "Make it happen". I do not mind she brings insult to herself, but she is also insulting Hong Kong people with that.
Members should remember that when the constitutional reform was introduced in October 2013, she used the slogan "Let's Talk". Not long after that, the slogan "Let's Talk" was changed to "Pocket it first". I once described this practice a fraud, for only in a fraud will people be persuaded to "pocket it first". It is just like pedlars selling fake drugs under the banyan tree square, who always ask their customers to "pocket it first" or to "take it first". In other words, you know that there are authentic drugs and counterfeit drugs, and when a man fall ill, he will be saved if you give him the authentic drugs. But if you give him the counterfeit drugs when he is on the brink of death, he will die in a second ― Secretary Dr KO Wing-man should know this full well. Those counterfeit drugs are comparable to the bogus universal suffrage proposal now offered by the Government. As for the slogan "Make it happen", I do not know who will make it happen.
9420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Carrie LAM has been serving in the Government for many years. When she paired up with LEUNG Chun-ying, she was dubbed "the nanny of senior government officials", which is quite an apt title for her. Members can thus see that whenever an issue failed to be handled well, the authorities would assign her to clean up the aftermath.
Let me cite some examples. When the landfill planning could not be carried out, she came forward to solve the problem for Secretary WONG Kam-sing. In the case of poverty alleviation, which is a thorny issue, she has been assigned to undertake the task. As for the constitutional reform, she is the one to introduce the proposal. Indeed, it is naturally the responsibility of the Chief Secretary to handle constitutional reform. Honestly, among the senior government officials of this term, only a small number of them have high popularity ratings. The official sitting opposite to me is one of them. There are several other government officials who are also regarded as hardworking by Members. Apart from these government officials, people have no expectation of LEUNG Chun-ying. Since Chief Secretary Carrie LAM is a Secretary of Department and a close aide to LEUNG, Hong Kong people have woven the fantasy that she is a smart and good fighter. In fact, it was also my first impression of her. Since she should know what kind of a person LEUNG Chun-ying is, we expects that she will make honest remarks to help Hong Kong people prevent LEUNG Chun-ying from adopting some sinister practices and tell black from white to Hong Kong people.
However, her performance in the past few years has disappointed all the people of Hong Kong, for she has told numerous lies. Members may remember that in January this year, she announced the public sentiment report. After the introduction of the proposal under the 31 August Decision by the National People's Congress (NPC) to shut the door, people from all walks of life, ranging from people from institutes to local residents, including elderly people from Ngai Tau Kok and the banyan tree square, came to us to express their views. They said: What kind of proposal is this? Is this universal suffrage? Do not deceive me! Despite all these views, Carrie LAM tells this lie continuously and repeatedly.
As a female senior government official, she has been playing the role of a "daughter-in-law", which is really agreeable to many. She has made mournful remarks that she has done her level best to arrive at the present proposal on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9421 universal suffrage; she tells us to accept it for we will not be offered other options if we turn down this one. People may believe it when the remark is made once or twice. However, she has been making the same remark and lying euphemistically time and again. She never tells the truth. If Carrie LAM bows to the remuneration of several million dollars, which she may regard as the five bushels causing her to give up her morals, Hong Kong people have placed the wrong trust in her.
She does not even have the courage to tell the truth. She cannot tell black from white. She should have admitted that the 2017 proposal is incomplete and she has disappointed us. Despite her all-out effort made in her capacity of a senior government official, the Central Authorities have only agreed to give this rotten orange and rubbish proposal to Hong Kong. Had she insisted on telling us the truth, we would have considered her a person with some conscience who could tell black from white. But she has not acted this way. She has done the contrary by saying that the proposal offers genuine universal suffrage. What kind of universal suffrage is it? It is only a coterie election by 1 200 persons. Among the members, 60% to 70%, or even more, are people who can be manipulated or influenced by the Central Authorities. Besides, a candidate must obtain more than half of the votes to be qualified to stand for election. This is obviously a scam. There is no choice at all. The authorities have merely altered the mode adopted by the Election Committee in the past and apply it to the nominating committee. By doing so, people whom the Central Authorities dislike will be screened out, and only people anointed by the Central Authorities can stay. Yet the authorities say that it is universal suffrage.
On one aspect, she has not told too many lies, and I will say she is somehow honest. When she was asked repeatedly whether accepting the proposal would mean "pocketing it for life", she answered in the negative initially. Yet in the latest report, she stated clearly that if the proposal was passed by the Legislative Council, that is, if Hong Kong people were willing to swallow this, the requirement of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage under Article 45 of the Basic Law would be accomplished. By then, Hong Kong people would have to "pocket it for life". When she was asked whether any amendment would be made after 2022, she said it would have to depend on the decision of the Chief Executive at the time. She responded with such a "slithery" remark, for it will be none of her business by then. No one knows whether she will stay on her job. Perhaps the Central Authorities consider that once the proposal is passed, the bogus universal suffrage has been 9422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 implemented and it will be used for centuries. The Central Authorities might as well let her compete with LEUNG Chun-ying. Yet she needs not be too excited and thinks that she will be successfully elected because she has the chance to be nominated. She may know in future that it is just a flash in a pan. Is that not the case of her predecessor Henry TANG? She may meet the same fate. The Central Authorities may extol her but also repress her.
This is not a proposal desired by Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people want the Basic Law to be implemented genuinely. China is now a great nation and Pakistan fears it. As China sets up the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, European countries fear it and Asia as a whole fears it. As for Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party and the Kuomintang have to compete to meet with XI Jinping. What else will bring fears to China? A large number of the People's Liberation Army is stationed in Hong Kong, and they are also stationed in urban areas. Once the Central Authorities blow the whistle, I wonder how many thousands of troops will immediately be sent to Hong Kong from Shenzhen. Why would there be such concern about security then? To put it bluntly, we have no way to stage a coup, do we? In what way will national security be compromised? The number of spies from the Mainland greatly exceeds that of Hong Kong. We all know who disclosed the state secrets to the United States, those former government officials carrying billions to tens of billion dollars with them ― Members should know LING Wancheng. The information involved in the case is state secrets. Will Hong Kong have state secrets? Hong Kong people will only read newspapers. The information involved in the case of the son of BO Xilai is state secrets. He has a ledger recording the bribes received by each government official and the information has been made know to the CIA, so he is now under their protection. The information just mentioned is state secrets. How will Hong Kong be qualified to have access to these state secrets?
We consider it heart-rending for Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has been a senior government official for so many years and the present task may likely be the final task handled by her during her service in the SAR Government. Some people say that though it is important for political figures to have a beautiful start, the most important part lies in the final episode, that is, whether they can leave a good impression to people before they retire from the stage. If people only remember her as a jackal from the same pack of LEUNG Chun-ying, just like other notorious government officials who are not tired of telling lies every day, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9423 we will describe that as a disgraceful ending. It will be ignominy. I am actually trying to help her. I hope that she will not stay here. If she is a government official with conscience and sincere in serving Hong Kong people, it is not worthy and not proper for her to remain in this sheer mess. Besides, she should not continue colluding with LEUNG Chun-ying and bear this bad reputation as a result of insisting on the implementation of this bogus universal suffrage proposal. All these aspects will only leave a very bad impression of the senior government official Carrie LAM to Hong Kong people as her career comes to an end. If she desires to end with a grand and perfect turn, I hope I can offer her this opportunity.
This may be one of the junctures when we are closest to the implementation of universal suffrage. We pin high hopes on negotiations with the Central Authorities and the things we are striving for. Today, our country has already emerged as a great nation and its GDP ranks second worldwide, and it is courted eagerly by European countries and the United States. Members may note the eagerness of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to enter into a contract with the Mainland. In fact, all leaders from European and Asian countries have gone to the Mainland to sign contracts. As such a powerful nation, China should have the breadth and tolerance to allow changes to happen in a small city like Hong Kong, for these changes may bring more than the mere rebirth of Hong Kong ultimately.
At issue is how this powerful country takes the next step. Will it continue to take the path of arresting GAO Yu today, LIU Xiaobo the day after tomorrow and then LIU Xia? Does it consider making incessant arrests a display of the power of a great nation? It is most ridiculous that on Women's Day on 8 March, a number of female human rights advocates were arrested. They had only brought forth the plain and general urge against sexual abuse against women, but it was prohibited. We hope the State will one day make a turn.
The present approach adopted by Carrie LAM is a disservice to Hong Kong people. She has not only failed to live up to the expectations of Hong Kong people but has also done a disservice to China. For the approach has stripped Hong Kong of the opportunity to strive for universal suffrage. It has also deprived this powerful nation of the opportunity to demonstrate in a small place like the SAR how the peaceful and rational approach to grant rights to the people to which they are entitled will only be conducive to the State and the SAR and 9424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 will not bring about national security concerns. Only a country like this can emerge as a genuine great nation. Otherwise, China will always be a closed society, a closed country (The buzzer sounded) …
I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in my last two speeches, I pointed out the problem that the Police have become an urban management force. I also pointed out it is possible that those officials who have abused their powers earlier during or even after the Umbrella Movement have committed an offence and will be put on trial. I would like to provide some information to this group of bigwigs. They have exploited their public powers to assault or unlawfully arrest members of the public.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has recounted his personal experiences earlier. In terms of the extent, number of cases and impact of the bodily harm and damage inflicted on members of the public, the present situation in Hong Kong, compared with the situation in Eastern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s or the crimes which took place in World War II in the 1930s and 1940s, is still a far cry, but there is actually not much difference in nature, it being exploitation and control of the public powers held by the Government and abuse of such powers. The damage done to human nature and the casualties inflicted are similar. For this reason, from the perspective of international law, they may face the same sanctions or trials.
The information mentioned by me is, as a matter of fact, widely covered in history books. Let me first enumerate what happened to the Nazi criminals in the end. Hermann GÖRING was HITLER's former designated successor, President of the Reichstag, Commander-in-Chief of the air force and Reichsmarschall. In the end, he was sentenced to death, but he committed suicide before the execution. Joachim von RIBBENTROP, the Foreign Minister, was also sentenced to death, and he was the first one hung. Wilhelm KEITEL was also given the death sentence. He was the Chief of the Supreme LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9425
High Command of the German Armed Forces and the General Field Marshal. Deputy Chairman, next, I am not going to read out those people's names. I will only read out their positions because the translation of those people's names …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, how do the names of the people cited by you have anything to do with the amendments to the Appropriation Bill?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, they are relevant, since I have proposed 72 amendments in total, including reductions in the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office, the expenditure for the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office, the salaries of the Chief Secretary for Administration, the salaries of the Chief Executive, and the expenditures for the Security Bureau and the Police. These amendments, as I have pointed out in my last two speeches, are related to their abuse of power. I have also pointed out in my last speech that their abuse of power might be illegal, so it is possible that they will be brought to trial.
Now I am providing further proof based on the logic and line of thinking of my previous two speeches. Even if they have public powers and hold official positions which allow them to exercise their public powers, eventually they will be brought to trial. Not only will they be judged by their conscience, judged in history and judged by the people. They may also be tried in court. Deputy Chairman, I am now providing further proof and information for the trial in court. Deputy Chairman, I do not rule out that some Members have also played a part, though in different degrees.
Just now I mentioned the Foreign Minister already. The next one is the Director of the Gestapo and President of the International Criminal Police Commission, who was also sentenced to death. The Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories was sentenced to death. The Governor-General of the Occupied Polish Territories was sentenced to death. The Reich Minister of the Interior was sentenced to death. The General Plenipotentiary for Labour Deployment was sentenced to death …
9426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, what you have cited is not related to the amendments to the Appropriation Bill.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, actually I was going to finish reading …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You may speak on the amendments concerning reductions of the relevant expenditure estimates, but your argument about the suspicion that they have committed other offences belongs to a different subject.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in the previous session, I appealed to these officials to resign if they still have a conscience. I am now providing them with information to serve as proof so that they will not act unscrupulously and be mistaken that holding their positions, they can just do whatever they want. It is possible that they will be sentenced in court.
Deputy Chairman, this is entirely relevant.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): May I ask Members to focus their speeches on the Appropriation Bill. Please do not make any other comments.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, perhaps the mention of these matters has terrified you and made you worry that you will be given the death sentence, too.
Deputy Chairman, please invoke Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure to do a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9427
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now when I requested a headcount, a Member of the pro-establishment camp sitting next to me said that I was lame for I was out of words, and so I had to request a headcount. Just now I requested a headcount to protest against the Deputy Chairman's inappropriate ruling. I am grateful that the Chairman has now resumed the Chair.
Chairman, I have a 60-page speaking note which points out the problems of each Policy Bureau and each department. If I am to spell out all of them, I will have to speak for a long time tonight, tomorrow, next week and in the days that follow. In my opinion, discussion on specific information of the various departments is certainly important, but arguments, justifications and political theories are equally important. For this reason, I have mentioned some historical facts earlier about the trials of former Nazis. Many of them were given the death sentence. A number of them were sentenced to life imprisonment, while some were sentenced to imprisonment for 10 to 20 years. I am not going to discuss all of them in detail. I only wish to put it on record. Some of them who had power and official positions did not directly take part in the massacre. A minister responsible for armaments and wartime production was also sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. Hence, everyone in the whole political regime is liable to imprisonment.
Chairman, back to theories and arguments. A number of my amendments propose to cut the salaries of Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux. I have appealed to them not to mix with the Hong Kong communist political regime, which lacks acceptance by the people, if they still have a little bit of conscience, right? They should consider taking the blame and resigning in due course because they can no longer tell the truth. Chairman, why is it important to tell the truth? Actually, fellow participants in this resistance movement should know Václav HAVEL very well. He was the former President of the Czech Republic as well as a political philosopher. His political 9428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 theory is rather famous. I believe he had deep feelings about the rule of the communist party under which nobody would tell the truth. The communist party could rule society with lies. I guess he had a profound personal experience of how horrible this situation was. For this reason, in his works, especially The Power of the Powerless, he repeatedly pointed out the evil of lies which distort human nature in society and the importance of telling the truth …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, the amendments to which head are you speaking on now?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am discussing a number of amendments on deducting the salaries of Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux as well as the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office, such as my Amendments No 1, 5 and 8. Many of them concern deducting the expenditures for a number of Policy Bureaux, Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system and the relevant departments, particularly the Chief Executive's Office.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you are speaking for the fourth time. Please do not talk about anything which is not related to the amendments to the relevant heads.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying is notorious as a liar. Right from the beginning, we have said that he won his office by telling lies. The whole governing team under the accountability system, that means the three Departments and 12 Policy Bureaux, supports this political regime of lies. That is why I request to deduct their salaries and have just openly appealed to them to resign. It is all related to lies. To show the gravity of damage caused to society by lies and the importance of telling the truth, the complete removal of these items … My proposal on the removal of these 72 items carries considerable necessity and importance. For this reason, I hope the Chairman will give me some more time to quote HAVEL's view on the gravity of lies and the importance of telling the truth. Then my explanation on this argument will finish.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9429
Chairman, HAVEL said, "If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else." For this reason, Chairman, when we tell the truth, we are speaking according to our innate nature and conscience. This is most terrifying to totalitarians. HAVEL then said, "Living the truth is thus woven directly into the texture of living a lie. It is the repressed alternative, the authentic aim to which living a lie is an inauthentic response." As a result, continuous lies will simply enable a hideous and wicked political regime which lacks acceptance to persist.
Chairman, I will finish after reading out this paragraph. HAVEL continued, "It is a bacteriological weapon, so to speak, utilized when conditions are ripe by a single civilian to disarm an entire division. This power does not participate in any direct struggle for power; rather, it makes its influence felt in the obscure arena of being itself. The hidden movements it gives rise to there, however, can issue forth (when, where, under what circumstances, and to what extent are difficult to predict) in something visible: a real political act or event, a social movement, a sudden explosion of civil unrest, a sharp conflict inside an apparently monolithic power structure, or simply an irrepressible transformation in the social and intellectual climate. And since all genuine problems and matters of critical importance are hidden beneath a thick crust of lies, it is never quite clear when the proverbial last straw will fall, or what that straw will be."
Hence, Chairman, to tackle lies, it is necessary to tell the truth. As in the example given by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung earlier about himself, if the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux, especially the Secretary for Justice, resort to lies, the Hong Kong Police Force and the Security Bureau continue to lie, and the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux encourage and allow officers to give false evidence in court even though the Court has accused these officers of lying and give false evidence in court, lies have prevailed to the extreme. As a result, if we continue to tolerate these lies, society will be doomed. To tackle these lies, it is necessary to tell the truth. If the officials cannot tell the truth and cannot point out the disastrous outcomes of lies, they should leave their posts because they are going along with the corrupt and siding with evil, causing society to degenerate.
Chairman, subsequently, as everyone knows, Czechoslovakia, which had been under communist rule, eventually moved towards democratization after the fall of the Berlin Wall 26 years ago. HAVEL, who took the lead in taking 9430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 forward the establishment of a democratic political regime, was elected and re-elected President of the Czech Republic. Hence, those who tell the truth will be accepted by the people in the end.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you are not speaking on the amendments to the relevant heads under the Appropriation Bill.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is relevant. Of course, this is your ruling. However, why do I seek to deduct the salaries of these Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux? It is because they lie. Why do I seek to deduct LEUNG Chun-ying's salaries? One of the main reasons is that he is a big liar. So this is about telling lies and telling the truth. Moreover, the examples cited by me just now, especially the example of Czechoslovakia, is quite similar to the situation in Hong Kong. Chairman, you are well versed in politics. If you study Czechoslovakia of the 1960s, you will find that its situation bears a big resemblance to Hong Kong's current situation. Chairman, I have made a table of comparison between the Czech society at that time and the present Hong Kong society. The rule of the then political regime in Czechoslovakia and the present governance in Hong Kong, especially with regard to certain tactics employed and comments made during the Umbrella Revolution (The buzzer sounded) … share a lot of similarities.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I continue to speak on Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, but I wish to speak on Head 23 ― Auxiliary Medical Service (AMS) first.
In the previous session concerning medical services, health services and the Department of Health, the Secretary was not in the Chamber then and as he is in the Chamber now, I would like to draw his attention to some prevailing problems.
As Members all know, the AMS is an organization assisting the Government in the provision of medical services, including rescue and other emergency services. But after 2003, the AMS has been more and more often required to assist in work relating to epidemics, which includes assisting with the body temperature checks and health declarations at ports and the airport, and so on.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9431
On this point, I wish to take this opportunity to talk about the work in controlling epidemics and infectious diseases. Two days ago the Government officially announced that the influenza season had come to an end. The number of deaths caused by influenza this year is, I think, a new high in recent years. If we look at the preparations made by Hong Kong against influenza, including the uptake of vaccination, we can see great inadequacies both in the vaccination rate among the youths and even that among the elderly and patients with chronic illnesses, and compared to other places such as Taiwan and Japan, we think that this situation is indeed shameful. Therefore, the result of the AMS being made to take up such a heavy workload nowadays, I think, is inextricably linked to the inadequacies of the health polices and measures against infectious diseases including seasonal influenza. The Government does not have any long-term plan; nor does it have the ability to show the public or us that the Government is genuinely committed to and capable of carrying out work in this area.
Where is the problem? Is it because of a shortage of funds? Of course, it would be inconceivable for this very wealthy Government and society to say that it is short of funds. I think the biggest problem lies in the Government not being willing to do it. What we have seen is that when you ask a person of any age if he is willing to receive or if he has received influenza vaccination, the answer is often in the negative. If the Government can achieve only such insignificant effects in handling such an important public health policy, it is actually failing the expectations of the people. Chairman, I do not wish to spend too much time on this. Although the Secretary is in the Chamber, he is not going to give a response anyway.
Now I wish to concentrate on Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Chairman, Secretary Raymond TAM happened to attend an interview in a mobile radio station downtown on Hong Kong Island yesterday. I saw that he was greatly embarrassed. Some people kept on hurling criticisms at him, for he, being a Director of Bureau responsible for constitutional affairs, has failed to meet the expectations of Hong Kong people for him or his performance at a most crucial moment. I believe any person or any Director of Bureau would consider these criticisms grossly unpleasing to the ear. They said that he is a "liar Secretary", chiding him for his being unbecoming of a graduate of his alma mater. Why would this happen? I believe everything happens for a reason. Insofar as constitutional development is concerned, it is definitely one of the most important and greatest concerns to Hong Kong people over the last year or two, and it is also a focus of public attention. 9432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
This Basic Law in my hand now expressly provided that Article 45 of the Basic Law shall be implemented for Hong Kong people to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. This is also a major responsibility of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, an important member of the constitutional reform trio. However, we have seen that the entire Bureau has failed to undertake this due task. Chairman, they said, "Let's talk", but as we can see from most of the organizations with which the trio had met at the time, who were the people with whom Carrie LAM or the Secretary were willing to meet? Simply put, they are people of the same camp. Many of those organizations are pro-China groups or associations, or organizations with whom they can talk. But this is what they mean by "let's talk", and it means talking with organizations prepared to accept whatever unreasonable proposal, and these are precisely the people around them.
Therefore, two days ago I heard a clever listener phoning into a radio programme, saying that Carrie LAM was wrong in joining Raymond TAM to say that most people were supportive of the proposal put forward by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) under the 31 August Decision. Correcting this mistake, this listener said that they should say instead that they had the support of all the people. Why that claim? He said that all the organizations attending the occasion were people of their own camp. Be they from Fujian associations or Guangdong associations, all were their own people, and they are like "members of the same family behind closed doors". Everything that those people said was certainly what they wished to hear. Did they go to places where the 79-day Umbrella Movement with over 1 million people participating in it was carried out? Did they truly face the people? Did they truly engage in dialogues with the people? No. Everyone attending the occasion was merely making a gesture, for they are all people of the same camp; or the Government had reserved all the admission tickets and were surrounded by security guards, but could they talk to the people in such a way?
Mei Foo is a very good example. According to news reports, many coaches were seen shipping a large number of people to Mei Foo that day, and the residents of Mei Foo said that those people are not residents in the district and that they had no idea where they came from. Then these people performed singing and dance shows in the style of Chinese "dama" (meaning middle-aged Chinese women) and they were said to be extolling the good times by singing and dancing. Then Carrie LAM and LEUNG Chun-ying asked them whether or not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9433 they wanted the proposal put forward by the NPCSC under the 31 August Decision, and they certainly replied "yes" because they are all people of the same camp. I wonder if they could take a meal for free after the event.
We have seen that the Government has become as despicable as such. We have seen that the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs has become so despicable as to need the kind of support resembling the "Emperor's New Clothes". While you clearly have not put on any clothes, they said that your clothes are beautiful; while you are clearly telling a lie, they said that you are telling the truth; while it is clearly a bogus universal suffrage, they said that it is genuine universal suffrage; while the people are clearly not given any choice, they said that they have choices and they definitely want "one person, one vote"; while such "one person, one vote" is clearly a fake, they still have to get some people reciting the scripts and saying that it is genuine universal suffrage. How can you justify all this to Hong Kong people in the present era, to our next generation, and to the young people in the many generations to come?
What is this Bureau doing? Has it turned into a "liar bureau"? I would say that part of the name of this Bureau is correct, and I mean the part of "mainland affairs". Chairman, we, being Chinese, certainly wish that there is no corruption in our country, just as Mr XI Jinping is not involved in corruption. We wish that the State governs in accordance with the law, just as the state leaders have claimed. We truly wish to see fairness in our country, and I do not venture to say that we wish to see democracy; I only wish that there is fairness and impartiality, so that the people can have a genuine channel to bring up issues of unfairness. This is certainly what I wish to see. But concerning "mainland affairs", what we have seen is that they mean bringing our affairs on a par with the Mainland. We may not be able to learn the good things from the Mainland, but as for telling lies and not telling the truth or seeing something but pretending not seeing it, we are really fast in catching up with the standards on the Mainland. Therefore, it is not wrong to call it the Mainland Affairs Bureau, a bureau tasked to bring our affairs on a par with the Mainland.
However, to members of the public and to people who once held expectations of Raymond TAM or Carrie LAM ― I believe the public are unlikely to have expectations of LEUNG Chun-ying and so, they may still have expectations of Carrie LAM or Raymond TAM, hoping that they can tell the truth more often. Maybe sometimes when they speak to and meet with the senior officials in the Mainland, such as WANG Guangya, LI Fei, and so on, they may 9434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 have to circumvent the key issue and say something they like to hear. This is understandable. One must learn to tell some lies in dealing with the Mainland but they just cannot lie about everything. Worse still, this report is but a pack of lies. What have they done in the past 10 months or so? The report on public sentiment published early this year consists of as many as 1 000 pages, which is incredible indeed. What makes up most of the contents of the report? It is newspaper cuttings. But even in terms of newspaper cuttings, the report fared even worse than WiseNews, for WiseNews will still extract all the news relating to the constitutional system and speak the truth, whereas the Government nevertheless filtered the news, extracting only reports that are pleasing to its ear but less of those that are not.
Therefore, what conclusion was reached? Chairman, the conclusion thus drawn has left Hong Kong people speechless. It said that the majority of people agreed to the 31 August Decision of the NPCSC and that there had not been much opposition. This is the Government's conclusion based on which it eventually came up with this proposal which embraces the 31 August Decision of the NPCSC. If this is what the Bureau has done, it might as well be spared from this job as everyone of us can use WiseNews, and would it not be better for WiseNews to do it? If this Bureau is set up to tell lies and support the wrong things or opinions not expressed by the people, we might as well dispose of this Bureau. If what this Bureau does is not different from what LEUNG Chun-ying has done, and as there are already the Central Policy Unit and people of their own camp, there would be no difference at all as they have been doing these things all the same. Since there is already a result before consultation, they will write up the same conclusion no matter how the consultation will be conducted, and since a bogus universal suffrage will be implemented anyway, they should not waste so much taxpayers' money as the entire Bureau requires a total of some $20 million to meet its expenditure.
To the Government, it may not be a lot of money to hand out even tens of billion dollars but to the public, they can only feel helpless seeing that the constitutional reform for 2017 and even 2020 has developed to such a sorry state. What are this Bureau and the Secretary as well as its Under Secretary and Political Assistant doing? Are they still assisting Hong Kong to move in the direction of constitutional development? Will they still implement universal suffrage in accordance with Article 45 of the Basic Law? If all the things that they have done are irrelevant and they do not do what they should do, why should we still pay them salaries? This is the most important point.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9435
One day, when Raymond TAM, whether he has been promoted or has retired, returns to the NT Heung Yee Kuk Yuen Long District School and sees the students there, I wonder how he will face them. The alumni of the NT Heung Yee Kuk Yuen Long District School has placed an advertisement in newspapers, telling the Secretary that one of the school mottos of their alma matar ― of course, I do not know it too well but it is more or less saying that a person must be faithful and honest and must not tell lies. What happened to him yesterday is predictable, and the public's judgment on him is also predictable.
Now things have developed to such a sorry state. Is it that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and Carrie LAM have no responsibility? Certainly not. We all understand that the chief culprit is the Central Government and its ― to put it bluntly ― obedient thing in Hong Kong, namely, LEUNG Chun-ying. We do not trust LEUNG Chun-ying, and there is no way for us to communicate with the Central Government. All we can rely on are those senior officials who have capably performed their duties, who used to have made some achievements and whom Hong Kong people have trusted. Regrettably, as we can see from the current constitutional development, we should not harbour any fantasy about them. So long as they rise to those positions, whether it be Raymond TAM or Carrie LAM, no one is going to tell the truth. They will speak against their conscience; they will tell lies; and they will say what Beijing likes to hear but sorry, they will not speak the truth for us.
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr Albert CHAN's mention of the Czech Republic is really heart-rending to me. I believe Members present here must have travelled to the Czech Republic. In the square most popular among the Czechs, there stood a number of statues, except in its centre where there are the graves of two young men on the ground so small that they are almost invisible. They set fire on themselves in protest of the Soviet soldiers' invasion. Why do I mention this? I have not strayed away from the question. I agree that the reduction in emoluments should target all members of the Executive Council, and the emoluments of policy secretaries should also be reduced as they are involved in a collective crime. Just as Mr Albert CHAN said earlier on, this is in fact a collective crime. But I think Mr Albert CHAN has still missed something in his speech.
9436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
In 1968, Vaclav HAVEL was only a commoner working as a junior staff member in a national writing authority similar to the Writers' Association in the Mainland. He was certainly brilliant as he subsequently became the President, but in fact, the one who deserves more respect is his Vice President Gustav HUSAK. This is why I say that no matter whether an official is returned by election, that is, in English, no matter whether he is "of the people" or "by the people", he should be "for the people". It does not matter whether he is returned by election, but everyone should be guided by a set of values. Since he is in that office, he should discharge his duties. In fact, he needs not be held responsible to the voters. He only needs to be responsible to himself. Hence, when determining the position of a person, I will start with the most fundamental principles of life.
Chairman, maybe you think that this group of Members have strayed from the question, but we cannot help it. Because I realized from the Basic Law that we are unable to remove policy secretaries. We can only remove the Chief Executive from office In that case, how can we hold them accountable? Hence, if they are to be held accountable, their emoluments should be reduced. There is no other alternative. If we have a system similar to that in overseas, under which the President or Prime Minister has to step down in order to protect a Minister who is involved in a scandal or dereliction of duties, then there will be no need for us to act like this. Now we are tasting the bitter fruit of the absence of universal suffrage.
Chairman, the names of these two young men who set fire on themselves have passed down through generations. Although their graves are small, they have encouraged everyone to speak the truth. Gustav HUSAK is the head of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The Soviets said that they had to make this man the head of Czechoslovakia. This is actually a bit similar to our existing political system. In those days, the Soviet Union also advocated the theory of limited sovereignty, meaning that in the big family of socialism, sovereignty is limited. It resembles our prevailing situation very much. However, we are talking about nationalism instead of socialism today. In fact, the then Gustav HUSAK and our current Chief Executive are very much alike. Both of them are members of the Communist Party, and Gustav HUSAK was also the head of Czechoslovakia. Entrusted by the Czechs or out of his own conscience, Gustav HUSAK proposed that humanitarian socialism should be implemented, and suggested arrest operations be halted, thinking that elections could actually be held within the Party. He did not propose that universal suffrage be implemented in Czechoslovakia. Rather, he just thought that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9437 elections could be held within the Party. For example, positions not under the central authorities could be returned by a bottom-up election. However, he was subjected to stringent treatment. The Czechs did not occupy the streets. Rather, it was the Soviet soldiers who occupied the streets. Chairman, on 21 August 1968, when we heard of the fall of Czechoslovakia from radio broadcasts, everyone's heart sank. And at the age of 12 back then, wrapped in a blanket, I listened to Radio Beijing. I remember very well that very few people would call this country Czechoslovakia at that time. They would only call it Czech (捷 克). The name of this country with six Chinese words (捷克斯洛伐 克) in length amused me much.
Chairman, on this issue, when we talk about accountability today, it means that they are entrusted by Hong Kong people. Anyhow, for every one of them, ranging from the Chief Executive to anyone who rises to power under the Basic Law, no matter whether they are returned by a small-circle election of any nature, and even if the electorate base of policy secretaries and members of the Executive Council appointed is small, they are still considered as people given a mandate. Moreover, according to them, they have expectations of themselves. No one force them to say so. Frankly speaking, the Secretary should know that the Civil Service is the largest workforce as all civil servants are his subordinates. They may say that they just act as government officials without any particular purpose. When any situation arises, it has got nothing to do with them. All acts are done in accordance with rules. This is right, buddy, but they have nonetheless played the role of political leaders. As I see it, actually no one has asked Carrie LAM to act as a voluntary leader. She can say that she is a Beijing official or government official. There is nothing wrong with being a government official, right? A government official can do good or evil. But she is reluctant to do so, pretending that she has political aspirations and claiming that she will lead Hong Kong people. Where does she want to lead us to?
This Gustav HUSAK took the responsibility for advocating humanitarian socialism. He did not give in even if he was kidnapped to a meeting at Moscow dominated by the Soviet Union. How was he demoted? Chairman, he was actually demoted to work at an embassy, and then as a gardener responsible for planting flowers as it was his hobby.
Chairman, today, our Chief Executive claims that he will guide Hong Kong people in resolving the deep-rooted problems. One of the tasks is fighting for universal suffrage for Hong Kong people, thus transforming the small-circle election, which is allegedly the cause of the deep-rooted problems criticized by 9438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 him in the past one or two decade. However, he takes the lead in obeying the Communist Party today. We have then come to realize what universal suffrage is actually about. He even asks us to "Make it happen", and criticizes others who speak the same thing as he does and express their idea more clearly, saying that if they insist on their original intention, it will imply that they have ties with foreign forces. Can he still be considered a human being?
Chairman, even if all members of the central committee of the Community Party of Czechoslovakia were put behind bars, they never surrendered. They told the whole world that their Motherland had fallen, and this is what makes them heroes. I am not being demanding towards Ms Carrie LAM or Mr Raymond TAM. The "dead and gone" Donald TSANG once said that the blood which flowed in his body was that of a Hongkonger and he drank the water of Hong Kong. I ridiculed him by saying that he was draining Hong Kong people's blood, and the blood which flowed in my body was that of a Hongkonger. Chairman, there are grounds for me to hold them accountable. Simply speaking, we can hold each of them accountable. Let me read it out now. By using the series of methods set out in Article 49 to Article 52, LEUNG Chun-ying can resolve the current public opinion issue and offer the Central Authorities ways to resolve the problems without hurting anyone.
As set out in Article 49, "If the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region considers that a bill passed by the Legislative Council is not compatible with the overall interests of the Region, he or she may return it to the Legislative Council within three months for reconsideration. If the Legislative Council passes the original bill again by not less than a two-thirds majority of all the members, the Chief Executive must sign and promulgate it within one month, or act in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of this Law".
I have referred to Article 50. If LEUNG Chun-ying alleges that we are the minority and asks others to drive us out, it goes without saying that this bill is significant. It is because none of the bills of the Legislative Council is required to be implemented according to Annex I to the Basic Law. It must be approved or revised by the Central Authorities before securing the eventual recognition, and then it must be passed by two thirds of the Members. Is it not an important bill? As long as Article 50 is invoked, every one of us will have access to a fair, just and transparent method. It comes from your own mouth. If a person with genuine public opinion basis cannot get "committee nomination" after "members LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9439 recommendation", big trouble will ensue. We need not talk about things like "members recommendation" and "committee nomination". We only have to directly appeal to the general public and let them tell us whether the existing structure of this Legislative Council can represent them, and whether the voting preference of Members can represent their views. The whole arrangement set out in Articles 49 to 52 of the Basic Law is a de facto referendum. It was invented by the Communist Party to deal with a disobedient Chief Executive, thinking that he might become the minority, so the Legislative Council was used to impose checks and balances.
Chairman, did the Chief Executive mention this? On that day, I had no chance to ask Chief Secretary Carrie LAM about that. But when I asked her "yes or no", she said "Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung should adopt a more pragmatic attitude". What does it mean by pragmatic? Am I not being pragmatic? I address this issue on legal grounds and according to the principle of justice, openness and fairness that no one can dispute. Many people criticize me for speaking nonsense. But let me ask the pro-government Members to take a look at the Basic Law. Have they read the Basic Law? Have they considered the provisions therein?
Chairman, it is dereliction of duty on the part of the Chief Executive for not mentioning it. Thinking that she was an heir, Carrie LAM did not remind him, or considered it better for him to do nothing. Only after buying a bottle of cough syrup could he appear before the camera. As a result, she did nothing. And Rimsky YUEN did nothing either. He studies law, but he only keeps explaining that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be fully vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, as set out in Article 158(3) of the Basic Law. Everyone understands it as it is very simple. Raymond TAM is also their teammate. He ridiculed us by saying that public opinion had changed and asking the pan-democratic Members to refrain from posturing. Is he sick? Posturing. What kind of government official is he? "Make it happen"?
Let me tell you. MAO Zedong also thought that HUA Guofeng would surely make it happen, and said "I can count on you". He also told JIANG Qing that he guaranteed no one would come against the Mother of the Nation after his death, otherwise JIANG Qing would not say "You arrest me soon after the Chairman passed away". This world will change. Only an autocratic regime or the God can say "You must have it", or Moses could never reach Cannan. 9440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Living in this world today, what will surely work? I can tell you the several regimes under which public opinion will surely make it happen, namely the Nazi, Stalin, MAO Zedong and "XI Daquan" regimes.
Chairman, on this issue, we have proved that it is dereliction of duty on the part of the whole Government through the example of Czechoslovakia. The reason is that back then, their whole Government held a meeting at gunpoint ― not window, but gunpoint ― not window. That is, they held a meeting under the threat of machine guns. Does this make you people admire the Czechs? At the critical juncture, the whole central committee was moved there for a meeting, and they only had to declare that they welcomed the Soviet soldiers in town. This would bring changes, or there would never be any.
Chairman, this sounds really familiar. WANG Jingwei once said that since they were no match for others and in order to reduce the sufferings of Chinese people, coupled with the fact that CHIANG Chieh-shih was incapable and the Communist Party was reactionary, he would pocket it first. Back then, he was originally very powerful with an extensive zone of influence.
Chairman, today I originally did not plan to teach people how to live a proper life, but when I spoke in the Chamber today, someone said to me, "'Long Hair', pack it in! After so many years of struggle, you have achieved nothing. What else do you want to give Hong Kong people?"
Chairman, I just want to say one thing. I only want to be a man who sees that the emperor is wearing nothing "with thingies dangling". Because only if I see that the emperor is wearing nothing "with thingies dangling" will he have the chance to get dressed again. Only if I tell the Communist Party that what it has done in Hong Kong today is wrong will it have the chance to do right in China. This is what I wish to say.
Chairman, someone say that "If you reject it, you will never get it". What I wish to say is simple, and that is "If you trade your right of heir today, you will lose it for good". This is a Bible story about a family tragedy brought about by a bowl of red lentil pottage. And there is one more thing. The Communist Party asks us to act like Abraham. The only way to prove that we trust it is killing our own son. Cheater! Pack it in!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9441
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In this part, I am going to speak on Amendment No 31 about Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office, that is, "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $2,760,000 in respect of subhead 000". This is approximately equivalent to annual estimate of the emoluments of the Information Coordinator of the Chief Executive's Office. Everyone knows that this Information Coordinator is Mr Andrew FUNG. Among our amendments, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Albert CHAN and Dr Kenneth CHAN also proposed the same as mine to reduce the full amount of the annual estimate of the emoluments of Andrew FUNG.
If we are to hold a referendum to "kick out" certain government officials, I think besides the three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux, Mr Andrew FUNG, the Information Coordinator, will be the one to go with a high number of votes, and he may well be regarded as the "most unpopular one who must go for sure". Yet what is the fact? Those who become the target of all accusations will stay firmly in position. This is just what the SAR Government makes the public feel sarcastic and absurd. Back then, when rumours had it that LEUNG Chun-ying was to appoint Andrew FUNG as the Information Coordinator of the Chief Executive's Office, the community and the political circle voiced a lot of views, and they also queried: "Is this man worth an annual salary of $2,760,000? My goodness!" Nonetheless, it was rather a pity that public opinion could not change LEUNG Chun-ying's mind. Conversely, Andrew FUNG may actually be seen as a miniature of LEUNG Chun-ying. That means, the more people oppose him, the more he is secure in his position.
Why did LEUNG Chun-ying have to make Andrew FUNG the Information Coordinator? Everyone were at the beginning, yet I analysed it in two directions. Firstly, Andrew FUNG is rather hateful enough that one will simply hate him by his look, even if he has done nothing wrong. It is very difficult to find another person as offensive as LEUNG Chun-ying. If you are to get another person for this post under such a criterion, you probably could not nominate anyone better. Secondly, it is because he is rubbish and incompetent enough to keep making mistakes, repeat his mistakes, wilfully make mistakes and be bold in making mistakes. The more mistakes he makes, the more secure he is. This is also exactly the predestination of LEUNG Chun-ying.
9442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Why did LEUNG Chun-ying have to appoint him? I wonder if Members have noticed that LEUNG Chun-ying has always enjoyed a very low popularity rating. While being a target of public criticisms, he is also the object of attack in the legislature. Yet, whenever there was an exposure of scandal among the Directors of Bureaux or Members of the Executive Council in the past, it could instead help share LEUNG Chun-ying's political pressure, and his popularity rating would stop dropping. When public opinion and headlines of newspapers started attacking such Directors of Bureaux or Members of the Executive Council whose scandals were exposed, LEUNG Chun-ying might then have his moment to pant. Therefore, having such an Information Coordinator who would be making mistakes every day, with the newspapers reporting every mistake he made, LEUNG Chun-ying is actually delighted to have got the right person for the post who could serve as his shield, sandbag or cushion. While there is someone to come out for the newspapers and us to give him some well rap on the knuckles first, LEUNG Chun-ying is also saved from touching the filthy deeds because all will be done by the Information Coordinator. In fact, we should put the blame on LEUNG Chun-ying instead, because it is only on his approval and appointment that Andrew FUNG would have done so many so-called good things.
It was mentioned in the editorials of newspapers today that LEUNG Chun-ying's visits to the districts on promoting the constitutional reform actually were neither for the sake of promoting the subject nor for soliciting popular support; instead, they were for the purpose of diverting attention. After arriving at the scene, he talked about neither the constitutional reform nor the package, but how members of the public had chided him, scolded at him with curses or shown him vulgar gestures. He will keep using such strategies in future. All of these setting up a stage in Mei Foo and arranging for some "aunties" from the Mainland to perform there are just the "ingenious gimmicks" contrived by them. Although these "aunties" got sneered at by us, yet they might let the contrivers feel so glad that the right choice was made, for a way to irritate Hong Kong people has been successfully made. After all, LEUNG Chun-ying or Andrew FUNG just aims to flame up the people of Hong Kong, the opposition camp, the democrats or those members of the public who are fighting for genuine universal suffrage. For instance, he made a series of visits to the districts last year, in which he brought along his own supporters and was protected by triads. At the end, he just told of the chaotic situation he encountered during the visits to the districts without mentioning any matters of his concern.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9443
Let me come back to this Information Coordinator, Andrew FUNG. His misdeeds, poor records and maladministration are just too numerous to name. However, one may well say that he has made quite some awesome contributions. Due to the time constraint, I am going to cite a couple of examples only. During the Umbrella Movement, the media captured that a protester was taken to a dark corner and beaten savagely by some police officers when the Police and the protesters ran into violent clashes on Lung Wo Road. The whole city was then in an uproar. Following the incident, a photograph showing a man in police uniform with massive stains of blood on his face and arms appeared on the Internet, which looked like the man had been injured by protesters in a clash between the Police and the public. Many members of the so-called "blue ribbon" camp or the pro-establishment camp used that photograph as evidence to condemn the protesters as real perpetrators of violence, while the police officers were the victims instead.
However, people with some common sense may know after seeing the photograph that those were obviously special makeup effects rather than real wounds. But then Andrew FUNG, being the Information Coordinator, copied that photograph onto his Facebook page without verification, with a message saying to this effect "It is wrong for anyone to use violence. A police officer injured at work deserves some sympathy, too. The spirit of democracy embraces love and care." Yet, netizens' eyes are discerning, and they are indefinitely resourceful. Subsequently, they found out it was a photograph shared by "Brother Sai", a special effect make-up artist, on Facebook featuring the moment when he was doing the makeup for an actor during the shooting of a television drama series by the Hong Kong Television Network. It was crazily ridiculed by the netizens. Anyone passing on this kind of photographs in viral is to be ridiculed. But it was such a low-level mistake made by the Information Coordinator ― a public officer paid a salary of $2,760,000 per annum.
Last month, LEUNG Chun-ying received a letter of petition in the demonstration area before attending the meeting of the Executive Council. In the presence of staff of the Information Services Department (ISD), Andrew FUNG recorded with his smartphone the scene of LEUNG Chun-ying's reception of the letter. A few hours later, a footage of petition seemingly taken from that angle appeared on the Facebook Page of "Speak Out HK" ― we call it the "fans page" of LEUNG Chun-ying. The Page claimed that it had received a phone-recorded footage from its reader, and stressed that LEUNG Chun-ying definitely was not "leaving hotfoot" but stayed and listened to the details when 9444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 receiving the petition. When reporters asked Andrew FUNG afterwards whether he had ever provided a footage to a webpage on the Internet other than that of the Government, he made no formal reply but only said that taking footage was a usual practice of his, which was for the sake of record-keeping. He was vigorously ridiculed by netizens for he had acted in a way that such a senior official of the Government with a salary of $2,760,000 per annum ― well, I need to say that once again ― was a common netizen, which was totally a waste of public money.
One may find in this incident that if you were an Information Coordinator in the retinue of LEUNG Chun-ying, and you want to take some evidence to show that your master did so-called listen to public opinions in the way that he did stay and listen to the details instead of "leaving hotfoot", then you are perfectly justifiable to have the scene recorded in video and uploaded onto the official webpage, the Facebook Page of the Chief Executive's Office or the webpage of the ISD, rather than recording the scene during office hours ― and he said it was done with his personal phone instead of the one provided by the Government, but I have no way to check it out ― in the capacity of a netizen or a member of the public and then providing it to a non-government website. This time he got caught red-handed, yet those many "black materials" that managed to get away in the past were all the good jobs ― contribution of articles ― done by this Information Coordinator of the Government.
Recently, there was also another incident that we had never seen before. He went into a war of words with Mr CHOY Chi-keung, Senior Lecturer of the Department of Government and Public Administration of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The cause of this incident was that CHOY Chi-keung had written an article earlier titled "梁振英的'以鬥爭為綱'" ("LEUNG Chun-ying's 'having embraced conflict as the guiding principle'"), featuring an analysis of LEUNG Chun-ying's political struggle tactics of reinforcing his power and status by creating confrontations. As a result, Andrew FUNG sent his rebuttal to the newspaper, with also a criticism of some Hong Kong scholars of being the de facto mouthpieces of the opposition camp in advocating personal political propositions in society and on campus. He also satirized CHOY Chi-keung for not attending to his proper business. Though Andrew FUNG wrote his article under the pseudonym "金鐘仁" ― which he has neither conceded nor denied it ― yet everyone knows that "金鐘仁" is just Andrew FUNG. Not only has he broken the tradition of keeping a low profile for the Information Coordinators, but also is he suspected to have interfered in academic freedom. As both an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9445 intellectual and a scholar, CHOY Chi-keung has the obligation to point out the blind spots for society. The reactions and comments from the rulers should never be a key consideration of his. Moreover, if Andrew FUNG did receive royalties, then he also contravened the Civil Service Code, which provides that civil servants who wish to publish articles in newspapers or magazines in their personal capacity for which remuneration will be provided must obtain prior permission from their heads of department for undertaking paid outside work. However, the matter was dealt with in a low profile by the Chief Executive's Office, which refused to comment on whether Andrew FUNG had broken the rule or not. That was rather tricky.
Before that, there was also another incident that I think everyone may still recall. Andrew FUNG left a message in his personal capacity on Facebook at around 5 pm. After that, someone asked him, "Shouldn't you be at work?" And he replied that he was already off from work at around 5 pm. In fact, the office hours of Andrew FUNG at the Chief Executive's Office end at 6 pm. Of course, he can say that he has applied for leave of one hour on that day for records can be made up, and LEUNG Chun-ying will approve that for sure ― because he speaks and works for LEUNG Chun-ying.
Actually, the appointment of Andrew FUNG by LEUNG Chun-ying has all along been a cause of criticism by the public. Which public office or assignment was the most impressive among the happenings of Andrew FUNG ― exclusive of personal disputes ― before he assumed office? It was his public relations company ― PR Concepts Asia Limited, whose person-in-charge was Andrew FUNG ― being commissioned by the Home Affairs Bureau for handling the election of members of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council. But then, the "double voting" incident happened. Each elector should be issued one set of ballot papers of 10 sheets for electing candidates from 10 arts categories separately. However, when it came to the commencement of vote counting, it was found that some electors had received a set of ballot papers that included 11 sheets, which meant there was one additional sheet included. Eventually, the election officiator and the candidates negotiated overnight for a way out, and it was not until 5 am that the vote counting commenced. Andrew FUNG did bow in public to apologize for this. To account for such a low-level mistake, he said it was the fault made by the printing company during the stapling process, and the serial numbers on the ballot papers were omitted on purpose in this election for the sake of protecting the privacy of electors. Nevertheless, he admitted that 9446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 they were responsible for the incident and would not get away. He also bowed in apology for the incident, and said that the Government's printing service, which was responsible for ballot printing for the Legislative Council and District Councils elections, should be commissioned for the next election, so as to minimize the chance of the said mistake.
For all these reasons, the people of Hong Kong have not the faintest idea indeed on why LEUNG Chun-ying had to hire Andrew FUNG, save those alternative reasons I raised in my opening analysis ― that is, FUNG is lousy enough, rubbish enough, shameless enough, loyal enough to protect his master, and able to distract people's attention away from LEUNG Chun-ying; yet these would not be enough to justify the making of an allocation by us. Therefore, I hope Honourable colleagues may support this amendment to reduce the annual estimate of the emoluments of Andrew FUNG by $2,760,000.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen actually asked the wrong question. Why did Hitler pick Goebbels? Because both of them were stricken by the same grief and they had yet to establish any reputation at that time. Goebbels was just a poor scholar with a doctor's degree teaching in a secondary school. In fact, he was the one who came up with the idea of burning books in public in August 1933, burning all the books which were considered as unfavourable to the Third Reich. I happened to pass by Berlin on the 50th anniversary of the book-burning incident so I went there to pay tribute to the incident.
Chairman, I am talking about Andrew FUNG and all those people who created a false impression to browbeat others for the Chief Executive and those who do all the spin for him, which is like putting make-up on a zombie. Chairman, if your memory has not failed you, we were actually criticizing another person, Ms June TENG, at first. We considered the vitality of Ms June TENG failed to sustain. Although she had worked in the media industry many years, she did not achieve any accomplishment. Therefore, we wondered why the Government had hired her. Subsequently, Ms TENG responded to our comments and said, "I will resign on my own initiative because I could not accompany the Chief Executive on overseas visits. I will resign from this position". How wonderful, she did listen to our debate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9447
Andrew FUNG is absolutely shameless. Chairman, on the day when Carrie LAM was making those eloquent remarks in the Legislative Council, the BBC from Britain conducted a live interview with me. They asked, "What do you think about it, Mr LEUNG? How do you feel?" I said, "I felt like I have entered the world portrayed in George ORWELL's novel 1984. There are the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of Peace". I should have said, "War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength" but in fact, I could not recall it. I mistakenly remembered the slogan as "Lie is truth". There is nothing I can do about making such an embarrassing mistake as I really could not recall it straightaway.
All right, I am going to quote those remarks to evaluate the leadership of Andrew FUNG, including his work in … maybe I should also mention … since I do not have much time to speak, let me talk about the Central Policy Unit (CPU) as well. The CPU stated clearly that … "Por Por", do you know who is "Por Por"? Instead of Mr CHAN Kin-por, "Por Por" refers to SHIU Sin-por who stated plainly that, "We are fighting a war of public opinion and we have to conduct public opinion polls". Frankly, when he said they had to conduct public opinion polls, the hidden agenda was actually exposed. The original purpose of conducting public opinion polls was to improve the administration of the Government. Yet, the purpose of conducting public opinion polls has now become creating public opinion, right? Yesterday, Mr WONG Yuk-man quoted the remarks made by "Old MAO" (MAO Zedong) who used the same strategy to initiate the Cultural Revolution. He said whenever a certain class in society wants to overthrow another class, it has to create public opinion. That was the most important order given by him during the Cultural Revolution. Therefore, three intellectuals were persecuted within a short period of time, which was the literary inquisition of the "Three-Family Village". I will not talk about it here. He was very cruel.
With the huge amount of money spent by the Chief Executive, the CPU and the people working under the leadership of Andrew FUNG, the Government has formed such a large team of people. What have they done? All that they have done is lying. Their aim is similar to that of the Ministry of Truth, as described in the novel 1984, which advocated that "Ignorance is strength" and they seek to make Hong Kong people stay ignorant. Chairman, we are not asking the Government to carry out publicity for us. We only expect the Government, which proclaims itself the authority serving all Hong Kong people, 9448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 to demonstrate a certain degree of neutrality. In other words, when the Government conducts a consultation, it should state clearly that different opinions are welcome in the consultation instead of merely joining in a chorus to say that only a certain opinion is acceptable while those who disagree with such an opinion will be regarded as sinners. Buddy, what conduct is that? It is similar to the situation where the high priest tried to set Jesus up, buddy. Jesus is a man of wisdom who said, "So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". Let us get a coin and examine it.
Chairman, everyone raised their eyebrows at such a practice. Why it seems like the Government has suddenly lost its mind and said it will die very soon? This is actually self-fulfilling prophecy made by a self-fulfilling prophet, right? The Government claimed that we must "make it happen" two months later. What should they do? They can only make every effort possible to achieve the goal, right? This is the crux of the whole problem. Therefore, we can see that all of them are "scrambling to pull up their falling pants" ― hastening to get the job done. In other words, those who are originally ladies and gentlemen have now become local ruffians and fishwives simply because the Government has set a deadline.
Chairman, I would like to ask you a question. Did anyone ever tell Moses on Mount Sinai that he must arrive at Canaan by a particular time? No. It was the Government which set a deadline on its own initiative. After that, Chairman, you even have to tailor the debate sessions, thus restricting the filibuster, for the Government, right?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, on which amendment to which head are you speaking?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am saying that the overall strategy adopted by Andrew FUNG and the whole Government's team was wrong. When the Government said we must "make it happen", it should be nice to the others, right? You may say, "I think I am right but I will defend to the death your right to oppose me", as stated by Voltaire. Similarly, the Government may say, "I am not intimidated by you as I am the Buddha. You are under my absolute control". The Government can refute each argument after giving the opposition camp opportunities of explaining their logic. However, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9449 this is not the case now. Even you, Chairman, were tortured and have to complete the work as soon as possible before June. It seems that the Government is forcing us to get this done so that we can either take it or leave it.
Chairman, such a practice is the same as that of Goebbels and the "labelling factory". I think if most of my speech is about Greek, I must say something about China as well. Such a practice is the same as that of the "Gang of Four", YAO Wenyuan, ZHANG Chunqiao and KANG Sheng. Chairman, what else can we say about the truth when the government sentences some people to death simply because they oppose the government? I am not saying that it will actually place me before a firing squad but it will kill my personal integrity!
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, what you said is not related to the salary for the Information Coordinator.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Information Coordinator is actually the one who let LEUNG Chun-ying make all those nasty comments and talk complete nonsense to allege that we were incited by the Americans to stage a colour revolution and to advocate independence of Taiwan and Tibet, only falling short of claiming that we are infected with AIDS. XI Jinping, who has absolute power, asked OBAMA whether he had incited Hong Kong people and OBAMA denied such an allegation. As OBAMA had already denied it, XI Jinping did not immediately retort, "You said you did not do it, OBAMA. Could you please produce some evidence?" Now, Andrew FUNG said if we are guiltless, we should show him evidence and in case we fail to do so, that means we are actually guilty. What kind of practice is that? It is the mode of trial adopted in Byzantine, which means the mode of trial adopted by the Holy See: Why did you stay up that late? If you were not practicing witchcraft, what made you stay up that late?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, what you said is not related to the duties of the Information Coordinator.
9450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): He is exactly doing that. He is exactly doing it, and I am just giving some examples. It is because I was praised by a teacher who said, "Mr LEUNG, your remarks are brilliant. The meetings of the Legislative Council were rather boring originally but you cited many examples. Now, my students understand what I taught during the History class. Please speak more and do not behave like those who seem to collude with the Government and always advocate 'Make it happen, make it happen'." There is no helping it, buddy. If it is a sin for one to cite extensive evidence when he delivers a speech, no wonder Hong Kong is losing its competitive edge. It is because talented people can help more people understand an issue by using various ways.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed from the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): OK, I got it. I have digressed. I will explain once again why I have to criticize the Department of Justice, the Security Bureau and the Police. There are a lot of people who cannot tell the difference between a state and a state apparatus. Chairman, you have read The State and Revolution and …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, are you talking about another head?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. It is because in terms of a state, in an ordinary country …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, are you talking about another head?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I am talking about another head as you told me to do so …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9451
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, on which amendment to which head are you speaking?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have not digressed. I am going to talk about the Security Bureau, the Department of Justice and the Police Force. Is that enough? There are three major law-enforcement departments: the public security, prosecution and judicial departments. I will only talk about the public security and prosecution departments but not the Courts. Why? A state is different from a state apparatus as the former belongs to everyone in society. The ruling clique often claims to be the state which serves public interests. Therefore, it has a certain degree of legitimacy. For example, if I assault you or the other way round, it has to stop us because it has to safeguard public security. A state apparatus is different in that as it is nurtured by the ruling regime to serve, in particular, its special objectives. Its purpose is entirely opposite to the original purpose of a state. Police, armies and prisons are examples of state apparatuses. Our state apparatus is expanding. Normally, a government will not allow a state apparatus to expand for fear that it will become a military dictatorship or it can control the President, just like the case in America where Hoover could control the President because he knew the scandals of the President. It is evident to us that as the Communist Party failed to crack down on the Umbrella Movement, it has to use a state apparatus, which obviously violates the principle of a state, to suppress its opponents. Such a practice will lead to serious consequences.
Chairman, you experienced these incidents. In 1967, the British Hong Kong Government relied on the Police to suppress the movement against the violence of the British. After 1967, the problem of corruption was particularly serious. As it became intolerable in 1973, the Independent Commission Against Corruption was set up. Therefore, if the power of a state apparatus is misused, everyone will be a victim.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, do not keep pointing your finger at me when you speak. It is very disturbing.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, I will point it in another direction. Can Members hear me? To suppress the riots against the fare increase of Star Ferry in 1966 and the movement against the violence of the British in 1967, the British Hong Kong Government completely relied on the 9452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015
Police. The reliance on the Police led to the expansion of police power and corruption. It was the first example. Second, the Communist Party of China set up work teams and appointed military representatives during the Cultural Revolution. As a result, the military power was expanded and LIN Biao plotted a coup. As for the third one …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed from the question. You should focus your speech on the relevant subjects.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): What digression? The Government relies on these three departments which are the aftermath of the unreasonable suppression of the Umbrella Movement. I am explaining to Members why we have to reduce the funding for them. Is it also considered as unacceptable? I am saying that in 1967, Hong Kong had already …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please focus your speech on the 2015-2016 funding proposals of the Hong Kong SAR Government.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am exactly doing that now. We can see that the whole state apparatus has expanded, which will lead to the aforementioned problems in future. It is because when your State and the Government make use of the state apparatus, a specialized department, to suppress the opponents, it is certain that the state apparatus will expand, right? Consequently, when the expansion of power is not checked, it will lead to corruption. Privileges are the cause of corruption and collusion. I have mentioned time and again that the cause of corruption is the vesting of unnecessary discretion or unnecessary power of suppression. This is the simplest principle. If both Andy TSANG and Rimsky YUEN can do so, Hong Kong will … those who are close to them can arrest people while those who are not will be released at any time. Oh, buddy! Chairman, the incident of "Seven cops" is crystal clear and I have asked questions about this incident for 288 times, right? If seven members of the public, just like the movie "The Magnificent Seven", ever chain and kick a policeman, will they not be prosecuted, buddy? Chairman, if you are chained and kicked by seven Legislative Council Members outside the Legislative Council Complex for making an unfair ruling, will you ever say you did not see it?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 April 2015 9453
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you are repeating your points.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The harsh reality of this world is that we have yet to achieve universal suffrage even though we have waited for a long time. Chairman, my point is very simple. I would like to tell everyone that I did not criticize the state apparatus out of hatred, although I certainly hate it by nature. I did so because if any ruling regime relies on a state apparatus to govern the country by special agents, just like the governing approach of Goebbels, it will definitely degenerate. It is because when a government relies on a state apparatus, the latter will be granted privileges and it will definitely take advantage of such privileges to act in a high-handed manner and bully and oppress other people.
Chairman, I am going to finish my speech. The problem is best described as the "Night Parade of One Hundred Demons" and it is very scary to see one hundred demons walking on the street at night. The corruption of a ruling regime is actually the cause of the "Night Parade of One Hundred Demons". When the ruling regime with absolute powers fails to crack down on the opponents, it will resort to the power of suppression. LIN Bao said, to this effect, "What is political power? It is the power of suppression". (The buzzer sounded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.
Council then resumed.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on 29 April 2015, Wednesday.
Adjourned accordingly at 12.50 pm.